INTERIM REPORT ON THE ENGLISH NATIONAL STADIUM

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Interim Report made by Mr. Patrick Carter in December 2001 in respect of the English National Stadium Review.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pre-Budget Statement

Simon Thomas: If she will make a statement on the implications for her Department's spending plans of the pre-Budget statement.

Clare Short: The pre-Budget statement committed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase significantly the amount of our development aid and its share of national income. Details will be worked out as part of the spending review over the coming year. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support a substantial increase in spending, for reasons of moral decency as well as of the safety and the security of the world.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I certainly give her my support for what was contained in the pre-Budget statement. I know that the right hon. Lady will do her best to spend the money wisely.
	Another wish shared by hon. Members of all parties is that our spending on overseas development should be raised to 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. The Chancellor said that the percentage of GDP that we spend on overseas development would rise, but what is the timetable for achieving that target? Will it be achieved in this Parliament?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for increasing the aid budget. Successive British Governments have committed themselves to reaching the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. The previous Labour Government reached 0.5 per cent. The level was 0.26 per cent. when I came back and we are on our way to 0.33 per cent. We do not have a timetable for the 0.7 per cent. target. As we go to the United Nations conference on financing for development, to be held at Monterey, many non-governmental organisations and other countries say that every country committed to that target should give a timetable. The debate is useful, but the UK has not yet set a timetable.

John McFall: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the work that they have done at international level on this issue, and especially on the way in which they have brought to the fore in this country the need to assist developing countries around the world. However, my right hon. Friend will know that there are still more than 1.2 million people living in absolute poverty. Would not it be symbolic if the UK could say that it would achieve the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP within a certain time? Will my right hon. Friend take that message as a matter of urgency to the Cabinet table and to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, so that we can consolidate the good work done to date and ensure that the developed countries achieve by 2015 the targets laid out by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should be delighted to take the messages expressed by him and by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) to the Cabinet table and to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I shall make sure that that is done.
	We need to improve both the quantity and quality of aid. The World Bank and ex-President Zedillo of Mexico have done studies to determine the amount of resources that should be devoted to aid and how those resources should be used to invest in creating the conditions in which poor countries can grow their economies and provide better services for their people. To meet the millennium development targets, current resources must be doubled. At present, there is $55 billion worth of overseas development aid in the world system, and the estimate is that twice that amount is needed.
	The value of the amount of aid resource contained in the budgets of other countries could be increased. That is not true of the UK, but the European Union budget, for example, is not as effective as it could be because of the way funds are tied or misdirected away from where the poor people and the reformers are. To meet the targets to which the whole world has signed up, the amount of resources devoted to aid must be doubled. We in this country have our duties, but we must also mobilise the international community to be more serious.

Norman Lamb: Sustainable development and the reduction of poverty are the key objectives of the Department and of the Secretary of State's budgetary and spending plans. What account has the right hon. Lady taken of the consequences for sustainable development in Tanzania of the determination of the Ministry of Defence to push through the sale of the BAE Systems military air traffic control system, which costs £28 million? Does not the episode demonstrate a failure of joined-up Government?

Clare Short: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have taken deep and full account of that matter. However, I am not in a position to make an announcement today.

Glenda Jackson: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have done remarkable work in winning the argument about tackling real poverty in the developing world, with the result that a policy of debt relief has followed in train. However, does not my right hon. Friend think that the Government's influence at the Monterey conference may be reduced by the current confusion over the proposed sale to Tanzania of a vastly expensive and utterly unnecessary air traffic control system?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for everything that she has said. I shall make sure that her message is conveyed to the appropriate quarters.

Zimbabwe

Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the measures taken by her Department to encourage free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.

Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on her Department's efforts to ensure free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.

Clare Short: The Government are working with the international community to try to ensure that free and fair elections are held in Zimbabwe. My Department has provided support for civic education programmes and the training of independent election monitors. However, recent developments have been very worrying, as the House knows. The economic and political situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate and is causing great suffering and a terrible growth in poverty.

Stephen O'Brien: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Crucial as the freedom and fairness of Zimbabwean elections in April next year are, what are the right hon. Lady and her Government doing before then to penalise Robert Mugabe's tyranny in having declared war upon the opposition, which could lead to a Rwanda-type genocide? What, in particular, does she say to the Zimbabwean farmer who has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)? The letter says:
	"For every day that this situation here is merely a point of discussion in the corridors of world powers, more men, women and children will be deprived of their lives, their dignity, their homes and livelihoods and their basic rights as humans."

Clare Short: I agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is a tragedy. Zimbabwe also has the highest level of HIV/AIDS in the world: 35 per cent. of adults are infected, and more than 20 years of life expectancy will be lost very quickly. On top of everything else, Zimbabwe, which should be a wealthy economy and an African reformer that helps its neighbours and helps the continent forward, is going ever backwards and the Government, who are misbehaving in almost every conceivable way, are causing enormous suffering.
	The United Kingdom is engaged in trying to contain the situation and get a commitment to free and fair elections and reform. The European Union is fully engaged, as is the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and the surrounding neighbouring countries. However, I am sad to say that the country continues to deteriorate.

Peter Pike: How can the Government ensure that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe do not suffer more as a result of the actions that we take to ensure that the elections next year are free and fair? We are quite rightly worried about the direction in which events are moving in Zimbabwe, but action can mean that the hard pressed whom we most want to help suffer the most.

Clare Short: There has been some criticism of this, but we have a big HIV/AIDS programme in Zimbabwe. Some people say that we should cut off our entire aid programme completely, but I think that that is wrong. People are already suffering because of misgovernment, and we should not inflict further punishment on them. We must make sure that we do nothing to strengthen the Government's misbehaviour, which we are trying to do. We are also doing all in our power to ensure that the elections will be free and fair, but there are worrying signs that they may not be.

Graham Brady: If the Mugabe regime uses force to prevent free and fair elections in the spring of next year, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be entirely inappropriate and would send out the wrong signals if Zimbabwe were to be welcomed as one of the civilised nations competing in the Commonwealth games in Manchester in the summer of next year?

Clare Short: I think that all of us who care about the people of Zimbabwe and the future of Africa must do everything in our power to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that outside observers are present, and so on. There are great worries about that, but we should not prepare for failure. [Interruption.] We should not; and it is not funny. We should do our best to succeed, because preparing for failure means that we tend not to try to succeed. The Commonwealth is actively engaged in considering not only what happens at the Commonwealth games but at Commonwealth conferences. The Commonwealth and the CMAG—the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group—are meeting to decide what the Commonwealth is going to do about the situation in Zimbabwe.

Hugh Bayley: Although I share the concern of Members on both sides of the House about the political situation in Zimbabwe, can I impress on my right hon. Friend the importance of working through international bodies such as the Commonwealth and the SADC? If we act alone, there is a danger of letting Mugabe off the hook by allowing him to accuse us of playing the role of an ex-colonial power. It would be wrong to give him that ammunition against the opposition in Zimbabwe, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that we will do what we can through international organisations?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. The story that President Mugabe tells his people is that he got on really well with the Conservative party when it was in government, but that the wretched Labour Government does not co-operate with him in the way the Conservative party used to. The story then goes that there should be land redistribution in Zimbabwe, which there should be, and the delay is somehow blamed on the Government. That is a piece of nonsense, of course—we strongly support land redistribution, but it must be transparent and focus on the needs of the landless or of those living in overcrowded communal lands. That is President Mugabe's story to his people. He is using land hunger to excuse what he is doing. It is very important that the whole international community be involved in pressing Zimbabwe to hold free and fair elections, and that Mugabe is not allowed to pretend that this is just an issue between Zimbabwe and a former colonial power.

Nick Hawkins: Does not the right hon. Lady understand how many of our constituents have families who are the victims of Mugabe and his thugs? All her fine words do not produce action to deter Mugabe, and many Conservative Members and our constituents have long memories. We remember how many leading spokesmen for the right hon. Lady's party encouraged Mugabe for years while he was coming to power. The party that she represents should not treat with terrorists and tyrants.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is very silly to make such a foolish argument. Mugabe was elected by the people of Zimbabwe. As a Government, we support democracy and the right of people to elect their own Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Look what we've got". The people of Zimbabwe elected President Mugabe. Members on the Conservative Front Bench are not allowed to tell the people of Zimbabwe which Government they should have—that is what caused all the bitterness in the independence struggle in Zimbabwe in the first place.
	I understand that some people in this country have relatives in Zimbabwe about whom they are worried. There are also Zimbabwean refugees in this country and they too are worried. People throughout the rural areas and in the towns of Zimbabwe are worried and I am worried on behalf of all of them—not just some of them.

David Taylor: Is not Mr. Mugabe's planned public order and security legislation worse than anything that was seen in colonial Zimbabwe and apartheid South Africa? Will it not effectively remove freedom of movement, speech and association and is not that an appalling backdrop to free and fair elections?

Clare Short: As I have said, the situation in Zimbabwe is extremely worrying. People are being oppressed, violence is being used, the rule of law is not being honoured, the economy is in a desperate state, poverty is growing and the country has the worst incidence of HIV/AIDS in the world. We are anticipating elections, but there are deep worries throughout the international community that they will not be free and fair. Everything about the country is worrying. We are all doing everything in our power to ensure that the elections are free and fair, but that cannot be easily done—whatever nonsense is spoken on the Opposition Front Bench.

Afghanistan

Andrew Selous: If she will make a statement on her Department's work furthering the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan relating to schools and hospitals.

Clare Short: In Afghanistan, we are working to ensure that in the short term UN agencies re-establish themselves quickly, and that schools are reopened as rapidly as possible. The World Food Programme is planning—and ready—to reinstate its feeding programmes in schools throughout the country. In a hungry country, that brings children to school quickly. The Red Cross is increasing the provision of hospital-based health care. It already has much provision in the region ready to be moved into the country. UNICEF and the World Health Organisation have been maintaining child vaccination programmes.
	For the longer term, we are supporting work in the UN, the World Bank and the Asia Development bank to begin the reconstruction of Afghanistan. That will focus on developing Afghan Government capacity in health, education and all other sectors and it will start to rebuild the shattered economy. Details of our proposals for the recovery programme have been placed in the Library.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful for that response from the Secretary of State, especially given that education was denied to women during the Taliban period and that the provision of health care by women was also denied. As children have only one chance for a decent education, will the right hon. Lady please tell the House what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the children in the camps receive some form of education—given that they may be there for some time?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world: one in four children die before they reach the age of five. To get children into school improves their prospects as well as those of the economy. There will be an emergency phase of reopening schools throughout the country. Teachers are already coming back to work. Women teachers were not allowed to work, so in addition to the banning of girls, many boys were thrown out of school. The provision of food in schools will help to reopen them. There are also 4 million-plus people in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, so it is important that education provision should be improved there.
	At present, the big move is in planning for the return home, as soon as possible, of the Afghan refugees who want to go back to their country. In the meantime, children in the refugee camps must be educated. We are working on that through UNHCR—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Michael Jabez Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deployment of British forces as part of the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan should materially assist in opening up aid corridors and distributing the humanitarian aid that we so much want to deliver?

Clare Short: There is a statement on the subject, so I must be careful what I say. The first phase of the plan for the international force is to get to Kabul so as to enable the interim Administration to go to Kabul. My hon. Friend knows that what was negotiated in Bonn was a transitional interim Administration, to be followed in six months by a Loya Jirga, which would be much more representative of all the people of Afghanistan, preparing them for elections and an elected Government. The first phase is to get the transitional authority back to Kabul so that Government institutions may be rebuilt, and forces are needed for that purpose. Beyond that, we shall see.

Caroline Spelman: I recently returned from Pakistan, where local Afghan aid workers impressed on me their very real fear that they will be expected to borrow so much money from the World Bank that Afghanistan will end up in a cycle of unpayable debt. Will the right hon. Lady consider promoting a trust fund consisting of the United Nations, the World Bank, non-governmental organisations and other partners as an alternative model for funding reconstruction?

Clare Short: No. I saw the reports of the hon. Lady's visit, and "well done" to her. The things that she called for were right. However, with great respect to her, the conditional funding from the World Bank will be available over 30 years, there will be no repayment for the first 10 years, and the loan is below commercial rates. It is lent at such a concessionary rate that it will be easily repayable, so it is one good instrument for promoting development. After all, economies grow, and we hope that the funding will be well used. However, that instrument can be used only when there are some institutions in place that can use resources reasonably well.
	Humanitarian help must come straight through the UN humanitarian agencies and we are not in favour of a trust fund for that. In Kosovo and East Timor, trust funds were used that became very slow at disbursing. We shall therefore continue to fund the World Food Programme, UNHCR and so on, as now, directly into their budgets through a UN appeal. Later there will be a trust fund. It is in the process of being set up to help the United Nations Development Programme, which will co-ordinate the initial work to get institutions up and running. Trust funds are useful, but only if they are used for the right purpose. They are not useful to replace the enormous resources that can be brought in by the World Bank to promote long-term development.

Caroline Spelman: The key is to use the new institution of the new Afghan Government. However, Afghan aid workers conveyed to me the importance in their eyes of a return to what they call the aid-for-work programme, which enabled them to get 200 km of road built in return for regular food supplies. Does the right hon. Lady agree that, come the spring, a return to that programme will be vital to the reconstruction of Afghanistan?

Clare Short: It will happen before the spring, I can assure the hon. Lady. This is food for work, as we call it—the World Food Programme's programmes. Before 11 September, the World Food Programme was the biggest provider of employment in Afghanistan. Just think of it—throughout this conflict, 6 million people were dependent daily on food trucked in by the UN. Now, as things calm down, in every community and village in the country groups will be called together—often led by women, because they tend to do things that are closest to the needs of the community—to decide what food- for-work programmes they would like, such as repairing roads or schools.
	Throughout the country, the people want to roll forward and get food-for-work programmes moving. The drought and lack of planting means that for several years Afghanistan will depend on food brought in by the UN, and if we use those programmes to promote self-help and rebuilding, that will help the country. That process is already planned and beginning to take place.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on International Development has just returned from a visit to Pakistan, where there was universal praise for the contribution that our Government have made, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, to the humanitarian aid for the refugees, both inside and outside Afghanistan. One of the things that became very clear to me, when talking to the Pakistan Minister for Refugees, was that almost all the refugees wanted to return home as soon as they possibly could. I hope that the Department for International Development will do everything possible to enable them to have a decent repatriation package and to speed their return to their country.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Government have made resources available, but as I have said before, my Department is respected throughout the world for its speed and capacity, and the country can be proud of the work that it does on behalf of the United Kingdom. I agree with her very much that the Afghan refugees, some of whom have been out of their country for a long time, desperately want to return home; they are not living in good conditions. The life of a refugee in a camp is a very miserable one—and yes, as soon as we can get conditions right in Afghanistan, assistance will be given to those people so that they can return home and rebuild their communities.

Romania

Gordon Marsden: What plans her Department has for supporting the development of civil society and activities in the voluntary sector in Romania.

Hilary Benn: Together with our partners—in particular, the European Community and the World Bank—we are supporting the development of civil society and the voluntary sector in Romania, both of which have an important part to play in working for change that will benefit the poor. Our activity includes helping to establish a national network of citizens advice and information services and enabling non-governmental organisations to provide child and family support.

Gordon Marsden: In thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I say that it is particularly welcome given that Romania, of all the former east European regimes, has faced the most challenging problems in social policy since 1989? Will he and the Department in general liaise with their colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that the UK/Romania action plan, which was introduced earlier this year to prepare for enlargement, gives sufficient emphasis to social programmes, particularly those involving child care, the Roma and minorities? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order; we are still dealing with important questions.

Hilary Benn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I very much agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes about the need to take forward the agreed plan of action. Romania is one of the poorest countries in Europe. It has experienced growing poverty, and the recent report on its progress towards accession to the European Union has identified the need for increased capacity in government, particularly in public administration, and reform in the private sector. Romania has a terrible child protection legacy on which the Government are seeking to make real progress. We are supporting that work through our programme and through the EC; there is also a big problem of discrimination against the 3 million Roma, half of whom are illiterate. We need to ensure that the programmes that are being supported in that country address all those issues, so that Romania can work towards its EU accession, which we very strongly support.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister has rightly referred to the economic plight of Romania, whose economy is now more or less at a standstill. Does he agree that the United Kingdom has a lot to offer Romania, particularly with advice on how to stimulate its economy with private enterprise, with a view to acceding to the EU? However, does he think that the situation in Romania has been helped by the cut in aid, which the Government have reduced from £6.4 million to just £3.7 million this year?

Hilary Benn: Our programme bilaterally amounts to £6 million, but that is dwarfed by the EC programme, which is currently £390 million a year, of which our share is £76 million, so the hon. Gentleman has not quite got his figures right.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Paul Farrelly: If she will make a statement on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and what steps her Department is taking to reduce conflict there.

Clare Short: The Democratic Republic of Congo—formerly Zaire—continues to suffer desperate poverty owing to decades of misrule and more recent conflict, resulting from the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda. That has left the country divided into three parts. Peace is essential to begin to promote development.
	The United Kingdom strongly supports full implementation of the Lusaka peace accords, which were negotiated in Africa and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. It is my view that, with greater international effort, the Lusaka plan could bring peace to the DRC and the six neighbouring countries involved in the conflict. The DRC would then be able to qualify for debt relief and begin to use its rich mineral resources for the benefit of its 60 million people, currently living in desperate poverty.

Paul Farrelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent United Nations report which identified the people profiteering from the war in the Congo? It included on its list a Mr. John Bredenkamp, a UK-based arms supplier to Zimbabwe. Will she ensure that her Department, with the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, makes every effort to halt the disgraceful activities of people such as Mr. Bredenkamp?

Clare Short: I am aware of the UN report, but I was not aware that a UK resident had been named in it. I undertake to make inquires and to write to my hon. Friend.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jane Griffiths: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 December.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Jane Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will know that the Reading urban area has received an excellent local transport settlement of nearly £7 million and that it has also received £38 million for improvements to junction 11 on the M4. Does he agree that this is a wonderful Christmas present for the people of Reading and that it provides a contrast with the Scrooges in the Conservative party?

Tony Blair: I agree—I think it is a wonderful Christmas present. The £37 million scheme for Reading will of course make a big difference in Reading. It is part of a programme which, for 2003, will mean £1.5 billion going to local road and transport schemes, and that will improve the transport system for all the places concerned.

Iain Duncan Smith: At the end of 2001, are there more people waiting to see an NHS consultant than there were in 1997?

Tony Blair: The waiting lists are down by 100,000. It is correct that the numbers of people waiting in the out-patient sector are up—that is true. However, overall, if we take in-patient and out-patient lists together, they are down.

Iain Duncan Smith: The fact is that there are now more people waiting to see a consultant than there were five years ago, which is not what the Prime Minister promised when he got into power. No one is going to believe a word that he says about waiting lists or anything else when the National Audit Office report today shows that the Government have put systematic pressure on doctors and hospital managers to fiddle the waiting list figures. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the NAO that that represents
	"a major breach of public trust . . . inconsistent with the proper conduct of public business"?

Tony Blair: Of course it is entirely unacceptable if the waiting list figures are being manipulated in any trust. However, it is important to put this matter in perspective. Over a period of four to five years, 6,000 people were misallocated on the lists and that compares with the figure of about 25 million for the overall number of operations done. The right hon. Gentleman says that the waiting list figures overall are up since we came to office, but that is wrong—they are down.
	If we look at the out-patient lists, it is correct that, in the first two and half years of the Government, they rose, but they have subsequently been falling. What is more, if we look at those people waiting more than six months, the numbers are now down 70,000. Indeed, it is the case today that 70 per cent. of NHS patients get their operation within three months.

Iain Duncan Smith: No one is going to believe the right hon. Gentleman, because he referred to the NAO report only to say that there were a certain number of problems. The reality is that the NAO investigated nine hospitals and found that all nine had breached their rules. That is happening not only in the hospitals that the NAO investigated. I refer to a hospital that was not even investigated but that is already changing things. It says here:
	"We are using a new way to make your appointment . . . You do not need to do anything for now, we will contact you in about 93 weeks time".
	That is the reality; that is what is going on up and down the country with a lot of hospitals.
	The report says that people are being offered appointments only when they have gone on holiday and that patients are offered appointments only when the consultant has gone on holiday—twisting—with waiting lists always being manipulated. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister is to blame for everything in the report and for the waiting lists that are all going up? It is his culture of deceit that has forced the health service to manipulate these figures.

Tony Blair: First, on the NAO report, I should repeat the words of the original report that gave rise to the follow-up report today. It said at that point in time:
	"The main problems we identified",
	however, lead us to the idea
	"that published numbers are likely to be overstated." In other words, it is the case that in fact the waiting list figures that we have given are not affected by the report that the NAO published today. The overall waiting lists are, as I said, down by 100,000. When the right hon. Gentleman says that all waiting list figures are up, that is wrong. It is correct that some are up. Some, however, are not, and overall waiting list figures are down since we came to office.
	However, we accept entirely that there is a very great deal more to do. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the only way we are going to treat more people in the health service is if we invest in nurses, doctors, beds and hospitals. The Labour party is committed to putting in that investment, free at the point of use. The right hon. Gentleman wants to charge people and take out that investment.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister was elected in 1997 to cut—I repeat, to cut—waiting lists and to save the NHS. That was his pledge. He cannot weasel out of that now by saying some of it is good and some of it is not. Some £10 billion a year under this Government is wasted. That is a fact. Some £700 million is unspent because the system cannot cope—fact. Waiting lists are up and in-patient figures are down. That is another fact. The reality is that the Prime Minister can weasel as much as he likes, but after five years the whole country is on a waiting list, waiting for him to deliver.

Tony Blair: Without going back over the waiting list figures again, I say this. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong in saying that the figures are up, because they are not; they are down by 100,000. It is correct, however, that we still have a very great deal more to do. That is precisely why we are committed to the record investment that we put into the NHS.
	Before the general election, the Conservative health spokesman set out Conservative policy when he said:
	"We are fully committed to a comprehensive National Health Service, free at the point of use and funded from taxation".
	Yet when the right hon. Gentleman was asked just a couple of days ago whether people should be charged to see their GPs, he said:
	"I think people would say 'I'm prepared to pay'".
	So we both accept that we need more capacity—more doctors, nurses and beds in the health service. We are prepared to put that money into the NHS; the right hon. Gentleman is saying that people will have to pay. I believe that the country would prefer a national health service that is free at the point of use rather than with Tory charges.

Iain Luke: Many people warmly remember the Prime Minister's commitment on 2 October to ensure that the world order to be built on the rubble of 11 September would be a fitting memorial to those who died in New York. We are three months on, and the war in Afghanistan is close to completion. At Christmas, many families will again have to come to grips with the loss of a loved one as a result of those attacks. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking today seriously to consider a suitable multi-faith memorial to pay tribute to the devastating loss so bravely borne by so many families throughout the United Kingdom?

Tony Blair: We would certainly consider an appropriate memorial, although obviously the events of 11 September have been commemorated in different ways around the world. It is right to point out that, as of tomorrow, it will be 100 days since 11 September. The war in Afghanistan has been prosecuted very successfully. The al-Qaeda terrorist network is effectively dismantled. The Taliban regime has gone. Humanitarian aid is going into Afghanistan. With the support of the international community, and with the support, I hope, of British troops in the international security force, we will be able to offer Afghanistan the security to reconstruct the country on a proper political basis, which involves all the groupings in the country, to turn Afghanistan from a failed state into a stable partner in the region. Whatever the appalling problems that arose after 11 September, we can be proud of the part that this country—especially our armed forces—has played since then. If we carry on doing that, we will bring the good that we wanted to see out of the evil.

Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the whole House accords with the final sentiment that the Prime Minister uttered.
	Returning to today's issue of the National Audit Office report into the waiting list scandal, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not satisfied with the position whereby a seriously ill national health service patient has their operation postponed so that the operation of someone in a less critical condition can proceed, simply to meet the institution of waiting list targets which his Government set?

Tony Blair: Of course, that should not happen, which is precisely why, as the NAO report made clear, when the trust concerned discovered that that had happened it took immediate action. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the campaign by the Conservative party and others to say that everything in the national health service is bad and that no one gets proper treatment. It is important that we set that in context; yes, over a four to five-year period, 6,000 patients were wrongly allocated on the waiting list. But as I pointed out a moment ago, 25 million operations took place in that period. The vast bulk of those people were dealt with correctly.

Charles Kennedy: In addition, most people looking at the story will consider it a scandal that some of the managers who either fiddled the figures or were downright incompetent have had big golden handshakes or, worse still, have been redeployed elsewhere in the national health service. Should they not be out on their ear? Is not the lesson that comes through all this the need for local effective management of the health service? Does the Prime Minister not need to rethink his policy of getting rid of community health councils for a start?

Tony Blair: I really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's latter point carries any weight at all. Of course, it is correct that those people who engaged in misallocating people to waiting lists should be disciplined, although it is important to read the detail of the report because some procedures were misapplied at a lower management level than senior management. It is important that when we look at the NHS today we do not say that, because that happened in a certain number of cases, it has happened in every case. It has not; the vast bulk of people in the NHS get proper treatment. The vast bulk of people—70 per cent. of them—are seen for their operations within three months.
	As well as bad things happening in the NHS, there are excellent pieces of innovation, change and development. More nurses, more doctors and more hospital schemes are coming through. In time, no doubt, despite the examples of bad practice, good practice will prevail.

Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend has already expressed his utter condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament last week. Will he take the opportunity to reassure India and her neighbours that the terrorists who attacked the Parliament of the world's largest democracy on 13 December will be pursued by the international community with as much vigour and determination as the terrorists who attacked the world's most powerful democracy on 11 September, and that those who give them succour or support will be treated with the same resolve shown against the Taliban?

Tony Blair: Many of those groups are linked to the extremists who have been operating out of Afghanistan. It is important that we take action at every level on their membership, how they acquire weapons, how they are financed and from where they operate. We express complete solidarity with the victims who were killed or wounded in that terrorist outrage.

Julie Kirkbride: The Prime Minister and I have recently been blessed with healthy baby boys. I share his concerns for our children's privacy. He will be aware of his Government's vigorous campaign to inoculate all schoolchildren with the triple measles, mumps and rubella vaccination, and their equal determination to prevent parents who want to give their children the single vaccination from doing so. In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his legitimate desire to protect the privacy of his child is very much at odds with legitimate public interest in the matter?
	We want to know whether the Prime Minister practises what he preaches, so will he take the opportunity to let us know whether little Leo has had his MMR jab. In doing so, he can reassure those parents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is too long.

Tony Blair: I think I caught the general drift. I am afraid I will not enter into any public discussion about the health of my children, but the recommendations on MMR which the Government are following are supported by the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, so we fully support the present campaign.

Colin Challen: Is it not extraordinary that 53 years after the NHS was founded, one of its founding principles—that it is free at the point of delivery—seems to be under attack from the Leader of the Opposition, only a week before Christmas? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Prime Minister a question about Government policy, not about Opposition policy.

Colin Challen: Perhaps we should consider making it a constitutional right that people have that founding principle as one of their human rights—a health service free at the point of delivery, which the Opposition could never demolish.

Tony Blair: I understand the anxiety of the Opposition to prevent my hon. Friend from getting his question out, but the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he is prepared to make people pay for basic access to health care. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I know that a couple of days is a long time in the development of Opposition policy, but a couple of days ago he was asked specifically whether he would consider making people pay to see their GP, and he said he thought that people would be prepared to pay. The Opposition have opposed the extra investment that we are putting into the national health service. My hon. Friend is right. There is an important debate to be had. Either we have a national health service that is comprehensive and free at the point of use, or we have one that is dismantled and paid for by the patient, which is the position of the Conservative party.

Nigel Waterson: Does the Prime Minister accept that the reality in the NHS is represented by the cases of constituents of mine, such as young Lucy Westbrook and Steve Peters, who have had their operations cancelled or postponed, and not by the fantasy figures in his fiddled waiting lists?

Tony Blair: The figures for the hon. Gentleman's constituency and area indicate that both in-patient and out-patient waiting lists are down. Of course, there are people who still do not get the treatment that they merit and deserve, but the vast majority of people in the hon. Gentleman's health authority do get the proper treatment. We know why the Conservative party wants to raise the cases of people not getting the proper treatment: in order to tell the country that the entire national health service is failing, so we can get rid of it. In contrast to the Conservative solution of getting people to pay, our solution is to put the investment into the NHS so that we deal with cases such as those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents—but let us never forget that in his area, the vast bulk of people are treated extremely well by the NHS.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister say whether, as reported in The Sun today, he will sack the Transport Secretary early in the new year?

Tony Blair: No.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does that not say everything about the Government's attitude to the public services and about the character of the Government? After all, the Transport Secretary said that Railtrack was bust when it was solvent; he said that he would save taxpayers' money, whereas he will cost them £6 billion more; he made passengers' lives a misery with extra delays throughout the country; and above all, he defended a spin doctor who called for bad news to be buried. Does the Prime Minister think that today, at the festive season, is a good day to bury his Transport Secretary?

Tony Blair: As for the right hon. Gentleman's allegation that Railtrack was a solvent company, I must admit that I have been mystified in the past few days to hear that Railtrack was apparently not in financial difficulty at all, but was roaring along, fully profitable and very solvent, and did not need any public money at all. Let me read to him what the judge said in the administration case:
	"This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate but absolutely essential".
	That was the case for a very simple reason: the company had debts of £700 million that were going to rise to £1.7 billion. [Interruption.] If the Opposition dispute that, I ask why, as Railtrack was in court at the time, it did not dispute it. It did not do so because it is indisputable. The difference between us, as I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman many times before, is that he has got himself into the position of saying that he would take £1 billion of taxpayers' money to bail out the shareholders, while we would put that money into a better railway network. If he wants to get up and tell us that Railtrack was a solvent company, perhaps he will explain why it had those debts of £1.7 billion by next March and why the judge made that order.

Hon. Members: Come on!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Ken Purchase.

Ken Purchase: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the determination of the United States Administration to increase tariffs against the import of steel? First, does he think that that will have a serious effect on the European steelmaking industry? Secondly, is not this a smack in the face for the developing countries that have been faced with American investment that has not always been helpful?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is important that we ensure that there is proper and fair trade in the world, and I very much hope that the United States will change its position on the issue, as it is unfair for European Union companies to be unable to get access to American markets. Of course that is one of the reasons why it is so important that we make progress not only on bilateral EU-US trade matters, but through the World Trade Organisation debates and consultations that are coming up shortly. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue. I know that it will concern many people working in the steel industry here, which is why we are making representations about it to the United States Administration.

Simon Thomas: The energy review from the Cabinet Office has been widely leaked but has not yet been published. When will the House get to see the review, or has it been doctored in favour of nuclear energy?

Tony Blair: No, it has not. It may have been leaked, but I may say that it has not been leaked to me, so I cannot tell him what it contains at the present time. It is very sensible that we review our energy needs and it is important for us to do so over the coming years. I suggest that, before the hon. Gentleman castigates the report, he waits until it is published.

David Kidney: Given that police numbers are rising, as is overall investment in police services, will my right hon. Friend help the Police Federation not to paint itself into a corner where it is seen as in favour of taking the money but not accepting the reform that should go hand in hand with the investment?

Tony Blair: I am sure that we will reach agreement on reform and it is important that we do so. The police do a fantastic job in this country, but I think that most people realise that we need greater flexibility in the way in which the police service works. On police numbers, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had in the past year the largest recruitment for 20 years and, after years of falling police numbers under the Conservatives, the numbers are rising again. They will rise in the next couple of years to a record level. Of course, the most important difference between this Government and the Conservative Government is that under this Government crime has fallen by about 11 or 12 per cent. but under the Conservative Government it doubled.

Bill Wiggin: Can the Prime Minister tell us what is the maximum time for which our troops will remain in Afghanistan?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement later. Our troops are not there on a long-term basis. We believe that they will be there for several months, but it is obviously important that they are there at the outset in order to ensure that the new provisional Government in Kabul can operate effectively. I say to Opposition Members that it would be unfortunate if they went to Kabul without the support of the whole House. I know that there has been some speculation that we would be sending thousands upon thousands of troops—we are not—or that they would be there for a very long time—they will not be. It is vital for us to be able to bolster the political agreement that has been reached with a security assistance force. Frankly, we are the country that is best placed to lead that force. There will be many other countries that will participate, however. I think that it is very much in the interests of this country that we increase the prospects of a stable future in Afghanistan.

Wayne David: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Government's effective response to the difficulties in the aerospace industry after the events of 11 September. Will he join me in affirming that the National Assembly for Wales and central Government are working well together to respond to the situation in GE Aircraft Engine Services in Nantgarw in south Wales?

Tony Blair: We are working closely with the Assembly on that. We understand the problems that the airline and the aerospace industries face. People's jobs are at risk, and that is worrying. The situation is replicated around the world, but, with the right support and partnership, we will ensure that as many jobs as possible are safeguarded.

Derek Conway: The Prime Minister has been glib with figures this afternoon. He now has another opportunity to prove how good he is. How much has been spent on consultants since Railtrack went into administration?

Tony Blair: I do not know the precise figure. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question, I shall answer it. However, it is beyond doubt that the company was not capable of carrying on, with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being put into it, when it could not provide a proper service for its passengers.
	As I meant to say in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I am prepared to take criticism from almost anyone about the railway industry, but from the people who are responsible for railway privatisation, a period of silence would be the best response.

Ronnie Campbell: Like me, the Prime Minister would have welcomed the Hague convention on abductions. He received a letter from me some weeks ago about a constituent, Rebecca Turner, who has been forced back to Australia with her young child, Holly, aged four and a new child, five-month-old Jake, because she has been accused of kidnapping the baby. The judge in the case in this country said that he had no alternative but to send her back under the Hague convention. His comments on the convention were interesting, and I shall read them to the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an important matter, but the question is far too long.

Ronnie Campbell: The judge described the Hague convention as "a highly laudable objective." However, is it right that a young family should be broken up and sent to Australia—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: It is correct that my hon. Friend has written to me on the subject. Of course, I am sorry about the difficulties that his constituent faces. Although I understand that it is a matter for the Australian courts, we are giving all the assistance that we can to Rebecca Turner through consular staff.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As our constituents want trains that run on time, how long will Railtrack be in administration?

Tony Blair: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the administrator. However, the longer the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered. It is important to restructure the company properly to ensure that the money that goes into the railways improves the service for the passengers. I hope that he recognises that a company that lost that amount of money and was solely dependent on increased subsidies through taxpayers' money could not go on as it was; it has to be restructured. Today's announcement by the Strategic Rail Authority is a good first step towards putting the railways back in proper shape.

Valerie Davey: The Government gained great respect from my constituents for the lead that they took internationally to ensure debt cancellation among the poorest countries, including Tanzania. Does my right hon. Friend support a current proposal which would increase Tanzania's debt: the sale by Britain of a military air traffic system costing £28 million?

Tony Blair: We must follow the proper licence conditions throughout, and we shall do so. However, we have written off some £100 million or more of debt in Tanzania and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been increasing dramatically the aid given to the poorest African countries. One of the things of which the Government are proudest is the fact that, over the past few years, after years of declining amounts going into aid and development under the Conservative party, we have substantially increased aid and development spending, and what is more increased it as a proportion of our national income.

National Stadium

Tim Yeo: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the siting, purpose and funding of a national stadium.

Tessa Jowell: I have today published the interim report of Patrick Carter's review of the English national stadium. His key recommendations are set out clearly in the report. They deal with the importance of the promoters presenting final proposals that represent fully committed funding, final design, cost and procurement details. Should those proposals not be delivered within a reasonable time scale, Birmingham should be considered as the alternative. No commitments should be made by any party until such time as final agreements have been reached as regards funding and procurement. Finally, the Government must be satisfied that all aspects of the stadium's procurement meet Government standards of propriety and regularity.
	Patrick Carter's report also recognises that the leadership of the project must rest with the Football Association—we agree—whose final decision it will be what stadium to build and where. Its preference, on the ground of greater return, is to go ahead with a modified version of the Foster design at Wembley. However, it has accepted that should that fail, strong proposals from Birmingham should be taken forward. It also accepts, as do the Government, that it remains a possible outcome that no national stadium will be developed.
	As the FA has made clear, it does not believe that the project can move forward without Government support and facilitation, but I make it clear to the House that any further financial support is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium infrastructure costs and the Government's interest in protecting the £120 million of lottery money already invested.
	There is much work to be done before there can be a final decision on a national stadium. Patrick Carter's report describes the many uncertainties that need to be resolved. Any Government support for infrastructure would not be committed until they were all dealt with. I must alert the House to issues relating to the proposed procurement at Wembley that need to be fully dealt with.
	The House will be aware that I had intended to make an announcement about the national stadium on Monday. I shall explain the reasons for the delay. It came to my attention at the end of November that concerns had been expressed that Wembley National Stadium Ltd. had not adhered to best procurement practices or corporate governance arrangements in relation to the new Wembley stadium. I was told that those complaints involved no suggestion of fraud, but implied a lack of transparency in part of the process and a failure to deal properly with actual or potential conflicts of interest. I was told that an investigation of the complaints, commissioned for Wembley National Stadium Ltd., was under way,
	On 13 December, I requested a progress report. I was given oral assurances that there was no impropriety, but that the chairman of WNSL would contact my permanent secretary the following day. Officials discussed the report in draft on Sunday 16 December with the FA, Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and its authors, and asked that it be finalised and made available to the Government for consideration before we made any decision on going forward with the national stadium project. A final version of the report was received yesterday. I have suggested to both the FA and WNSL that they should publish it. I have asked for it to be made available to the National Audit Office, and they have agreed. At present it is bound by legal privilege and confidentiality, but I can say that it confirms the existence of a number of serious concerns.
	WNSL made a statement today outlining the report's principal conclusions.
	It stated: "No evidence whatever had been found of any criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process, but the report was critical of the procurement process up to September 2000 and recommended specific steps to be taken by WNSL for close monitoring of the project. The review addressed issues relating to value for money, but found that there was a sustainable argument that best value today was likely to result from enabling WNSL to proceed through Multiplex to build a new national stadium. The report recommended that WNSL review aspects of corporate governance."
	Patrick Carter alludes to those concerns in the covering letter accompanying the report, which I have published today.
	I have told the FA and WNSL that should they wish to continue with the Multiplex contract, they must set in train an independent assessment of the value for money that it represents, and must ensure that corporate governance and procurement arrangements from now on represent best practice, before the Government will proceed with any further support for the project—financial, moral or otherwise.
	Four points must now be addressed by the FA and WNSL. First, an independent value-for-money assessment of the proposed contracts with Multiplex must be commissioned, and conducted by an appropriate company with no previous or likely future involvement in the project. Secondly, at my request WNSL has ensured that papers relating to the matter are available to the Comptroller and Auditor General so that he can decide whether to look into the matter further. Thirdly, we seek confirmation that corporate governance changes will be made to produce a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures acceptable to the public sector. Fourthly, we seek confirmation that financial support is adequate and fully committed, after all relevant factors have been taken into account in a process of due diligence.
	Finally, let me refer briefly to athletics. Sport England and the FA will look at that during the next stage of discussions. I hope that the House understands why that next stage is so crucial. Sport England now believes that a different platform solution can be developed more cheaply, and without the disruption associated with the original proposals. Before any further decision is made, however, I will ensure that Sport England commissions a detailed technical evaluation of the proposals to make certain that they fully meet the technical criteria of the athletics governing body. It will also prepare a proper cost-benefit analysis comparing the new proposals with those of 1999.
	In short—although I am afraid that I have spoken at some length—the Government will work with the FA to resolve these issues. The end result that we want is a national stadium, but those four fundamental points must be addressed first. Then we will have a national stadium of which we can be proud.

Tim Yeo: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Government's handling of the national stadium issue has led to a series of disasters, caused directly by the dithering and blundering of successive Ministers?
	Four years ago, the Government decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley, with athletics. Two years ago, they decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley, without athletics. When the Secretary of State took over six months ago, she could not decide whether there should be a national stadium at all, whether it should be at Wembley, or whether athletics should be part of it. Judging by her reply this afternoon, she is still dithering. Few who heard it will be reassured that she has any more grip on the issue than her predecessor.
	How watertight does the Secretary of State expect the arrangements for the new national stadium at Wembley to be by 31 March next year? Will the contracts involving the Football Association, WNSL, International Management Group, Multiplex, Sport England and the Government be available for public inspection? Will planning permission have been granted?
	As it has taken the Secretary of State more than three and a half months just to publish the Carter report on which her statement is apparently based, does she really believe that the complex negotiations under way and still to be concluded can be completed in the same time frame?
	Does the right hon. Lady believe that Wembley will host athletics, as is now proposed? If not, when will the £20 million promised by her predecessor be repaid? Will she confirm that if by any chance Wembley stadium does not get built, all the money paid by Sport England will be repaid, and promptly? Will she also confirm that the plans that she has outlined require a further £20 million of public money to be spent, and will she explain precisely what that extra money will be spent on, or is it just another figure plucked out of thin air?
	Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the report about the probity of the procurement process is published before a penny more of public money is spent? Will she confirm that in the past few days, her Department, without consultation, has intervened to cut out of the scheme altogether the £19 million rebuilding of Wembley Park tube station? Will she confirm that the cut-price alternative of tarting up the existing station means that the stadium could not be cleared of spectators within an hour, and disabled access would be greatly reduced?
	Will the right hon. Lady explain the main features of the Wembley proposal that she considers superior to the excellent Birmingham bid? Is it the design of the stadium, accessibility to sports fans or value for money? In the House on 2 May this year, the Prime Minister gave an assurance about the Wembley project. He said:
	"we must now sit down and work out a way through it so that we have a proper national stadium."—[Official Report, 2 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 841.]
	Does she agree that that assurance means that the Government have accepted responsibility for seeing this project through to its conclusion?
	Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, after four and a half years of Labour Government, England is still without a national stadium, football is without a flagship ground, London has lost the world athletics championships, Britain has lost the chance to host the World cup, Birmingham and Coventry have been encouraged to spend money and time on bids that Ministers had no intention of taking seriously, and Britain's reputation in international sporting circles has never been lower?

Tessa Jowell: There is all the difference in the world between the rant of opposition, which is what we have just heard, and the serious business of government, which recognises that this is an enormous, expensive and complex project. We will give Government support to the project when, and only when, the issues that I raised in my statement have been properly addressed.
	As recently as the end of October, the Football Association and Sport England made it absolutely clear that if the national football stadium at Wembley was not capable of hosting athletics, the £20 million would be returned. The precise terms of the lottery agreement require an athletics-capable stadium. I require additional work to establish whether the athletics capability meets the requirements of the athletics governing body. The Football Association has clearly shown its willingness to undertake that exercise.
	The hon. Gentleman can rant, but we will get on and negotiate in the public interest, safeguarding the Government's position. However, we need to establish a clear dividing line, because ultimately the funding for, and the location of, the national stadium are football's responsibility. Once the outstanding matters have been settled, we will announce how to proceed.

Barry Gardiner: Of course, from a constituency point of view, I welcome the announcement today by the FA and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I wish to focus on two points. First, she was right to commission the Carter report, because it has exposed all the weaknesses of the financial arrangements into which the FA had entered. It will enable the project to be driven forward properly. Secondly, can she offer confirmation on the important issue of Wembley Park tube station and the commitment of London Underground? I trust that she will have words soon with the Metropolitan police so that she is sure that they are convinced that it will be possible to clear the stadium in a timely and effective manner, that proper crowd control will be possible and that there is no danger to the security of the public. Those are essential infrastructure elements on which the success of the stadium will ultimately rest.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive approach today and throughout what have been difficult months for the project. He has a clear constituency interest, and I thank him for that. I take this opportunity to thank again Patrick Carter for his valuable work for the Government and the FA. The decision on infrastructure support for the project will clearly be part of the consideration in the next stage, as the project is taken forward. As of now, I must make it clear to the House that the number of matches and events that the FA would intend to hold at a new stadium would not exceed the number on the licence attaching to the planning consent, so regeneration or rebuilding to increase the capacity of the tube station is therefore not a requirement. My hon. Friend also mentioned the wider issue of regeneration of the area around the stadium, which will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to consider as the project moves forward.

Nick Harvey: Does the Secretary of State think that it is right that £120 million that was given to the project for a multi-purpose stadium should remain available to the company if the stadium will be used only for football? Will not the athletics platform be a temporary structure put in place only for a specific games, and is she not shutting the door after the horse has bolted, given that we have lost the games? Will not it be ironic if, as football figures have suggested in the past few days, the new stadium opens in time for a cup final or charity shield in May or August 2005, exactly when the world athletics championships are due to take place? Given the popularity of England playing their matches around the country, does she agree that England fans from more distant areas should be assured of improved transport connections to Wembley before any such decision is made?

Tessa Jowell: On the final point, I accept that if the FA decides to proceed, subject to the conditions that I have set out this afternoon, the infrastructure support for the project must be adequate. It is a good example of why the Government need to facilitate the project, but that is different from it being a Government project. It will be Government supported and Government facilitated precisely so as to address those issues. The terms of the lottery agreement are also clear. The lottery money—the £120 million—was provided to acquire the site for a stadium that would include an athletics capability. I have already mentioned the recognition by the FA and Sport England that if it will not include that capability, £20 million should be returned. However, there is more work to be done on that.
	Finally, I respectfully suggest that in this complex set of relationships, the hon. Gentleman needs to be clear about the differing responsibilities of the Government, the Football Association and Sport England.

Gerald Kaufman: This matter began with the previous Government and Sport England's totally unjustified decision to hand over £120 million. May I plead with my right hon. Friend to steer clear of what has become a grubby and dodgy project? The Football Association has shown itself to be greedy in holding on to £120 million of public money to which it has no conceivable right. It has also shown itself to be neither competent nor trustworthy. In addition, Sport England has recklessly handed over public money without any safeguards, and its appropriateness as the agency to deal with these matters needs to be considered. Will she assure the House that a firm, clear time limit will be set for the project, so that either it can go ahead or the £120 million can be returned in full?
	Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will make it clear that not a penny of taxpayers' money will go into the project unless it goes forward within a reasonable time limit? Wembley was never a national stadium, and the FA should not bamboozle the Government into putting up our constituents' money to buy it a stadium.

Tessa Jowell: As usual, my right hon. Friend has expressed his views forcefully and unequivocally. I have three things to say in response.
	First, I do not think that it is helpful to rake over the ashes of past decisions about Wembley, beyond the point that I made earlier about the Government's responsibility to safeguard the public investment that has been made already. Secondly, my right hon. Friend is right to say that the project cannot be let drift indefinitely and that firm and clear deadlines for agreements to be reached must be set. Finally, he is also right to say—as I made clear earlier—that Government support and the FA's decision to proceed should be conditional on the terms that I set out in my opening statement being met.

Andrew Mitchell: The Secretary of State's statement at least left the door ajar for Birmingham's excellent bid, but does she accept that there will be huge disappointment that it has not been accepted outright? Does she appreciate that some 75 per cent. of football fans live north of Watford? Has she had a chance to study the report produced from a survey conducted by Sky, which shows that more than 70 per cent. of football fans do not want the stadium to be built at Wembley? Will she bear in mind that, to many people, this is a classic example of London-based decision makers making London-centric decisions that are not in the interests of the wider country?

Tessa Jowell: I entirely accept the disappointment felt by those who have promoted Birmingham's bid to build the national stadium there. Moreover, I take this opportunity to commend—as Patrick Carter does in his report—the quality of the bid that Birmingham submitted. However, as I hope I have made clear, the decision about where the stadium is to be built is for the Football Association to make. The Football Association has decided that its preference is to develop the site at Wembley because that is at present a better commercial proposition than Birmingham. It has made a commercial decision. I understand the disappointment that is felt and, of course, the voice of fans should be heard. I welcome the FA's confirmation that if the Wembley proposal does not proceed, Birmingham is the alternative.

Dennis Turner: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Birmingham bid would give the FA the 21st century- class stadium that it requires. Many of us in the House and many thousands outside are extremely disappointed at the FA's decision, which we think is wretched. There is overwhelming support for the Birmingham bid from football fans, football clubs, the business community and the general public. Will my right hon. Friend explain why that has been ignored?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate of Birmingham as the host for the national stadium. I simply reiterate that, as I told the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the decision on location is for the Football Association. It has taken that decision on commercial grounds, subject to the caveat that should Wembley fail, it will look to Birmingham as the alternative.

Andrew MacKay: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on the role of Mr. Ken Bates in this fiasco? Will she also satisfy the House that she believes that all public funds have been properly accounted for?

Tessa Jowell: No, I do not wish to comment on the internal affairs of WNSL. I have outlined the report's conclusions and the action that will be taken in the light of that report.

Glenda Jackson: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the decision on the financing and siting of a national stadium is the business of the FA. However, if the decision is taken to site it at Wembley, surely it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the desperately needed regeneration of an area that was grossly neglected during the 18 years of Conservative Government is properly served by a truly integrated public transport system. Surely that means that Wembley Park requires more than just regeneration.

Tessa Jowell: Let me separate out two issues. First, I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier remarks on the necessary capacity of the tube to support the demand placed on it by spectators travelling to and from the stadium. Secondly, I entirely endorse her remarks about the blight in that part of London as a result of 18 years of neglect, indifference and failure to invest under the previous Government. One very important gain of a development such as this, whether it is in Birmingham or Wembley, is that the regeneration of the area means benefits for local people.

Alistair Burt: Is the right hon. Lady not embarrassed about the fact that in the years since the Taylor report, clubs the length and breadth of the country from Livingstone to Blackburn to Arlesey in my constituency have developed wonderful stadiums without any of the fuss that she has been through? Is she not embarrassed about the fact that on being given the World cup to host, the French developed a superb stadium at the Stade de France to cater for their national needs? Why on earth were those plans not simply picked up and implemented?
	Is the right hon. Lady not further embarrassed that the Government of a country that can produce the perfection of Michael Owen and David Beckham can make such a Horlicks of producing a national stadium in which to display their talents?

Tessa Jowell: I am not remotely embarrassed about gripping a difficult issue on which decisions will need careful handling so that we reach a conclusion that is in the interests of sport and spectators. The Stade de France was extremely expensive. We should consider the experience of the development of stadiums throughout the world. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman do that so that he might understand more fully than his question suggested the complexity and difficulty that face us. I want to make it clear that this is football's national stadium. It is the sport's project, for which it seeks help and support from the Government, and I have set out the conditions under which that will be forthcoming. Yes, there are those—members of the FA and fans—who take the view that no national stadium is necessary because England are doing better travelling around the country than they have done for many years.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State mentioned the lottery agreement. Is she aware that a substantial part of that dealt with the proposal that the national sports stadium should be suitable for the Olympic games? Has the FA—not the Government—consulted the British Olympic Association during the past six months about its views? Will she please take my advice, even though she may not want to do so? Having been fooled by the FA before, it is important that she ensures that the FA does not call the shots on this project.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend should accept that the FA also recognises the importance of transparency and public confidence in the project as it moves forward. I hope that I have also made it clear that decisions about athletics and the capability of a proposed stadium to host sporting events other than football and rugby need to be assessed with the relevant governing bodies. They would obviously include the British Olympic Association, which is meeting Sport England and UK Sport to consider the feasibility and desirability of an Olympic bid. Those discussions will have a part in any future decision about the place of athletics at Wembley.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State expect a national stadium to be built and if so, when?

Tessa Jowell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I have already said. I set out the position in some detail.

Doug Henderson: Is not the concept of a national football stadium, as envisaged at Wembley, a relic of the past in an over-centralised Britain? Should not a Government with an intelligent regional policy tell the FA that it is time to use the excellent grounds in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle and even Sunderland?

Tessa Jowell: There is extensive representation of interests outside London in the FA as a body. In the context of the broad regional and national spread of its membership, the association has reached the conclusion that it wants to proceed at Wembley. It is the FA's decision and, in that respect, a matter for the association.

David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a time in life and in politics to cut and run, and that it is time to cut and run from this national disaster associated with not only her own Government but the previous one? Why will she not consider taking ownership of the site around that other national disaster, the millennium dome, and making that the site for the national stadium? Why does she not enable Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to be given Home Office authority to raise private sector funds to finance such a national stadium and maintain it in London—the capital of England? I would rather have a national stadium in the capital of England, just as I would rather have one in Belfast than in my home town of Ballymoney.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. I am certainly not cutting and running, so I reject that part of his proposal. In relation to the remainder of his remarks, I think that he makes his point, but it is not advice that I intend to pursue.

Derek Twigg: While the national stadium will be a very important issue in my constituency, the bigger issue is what will happen to the twin towers at Wembley. Before the last debacle, there was a prepared proposal on the table that the twin towers should come to Halton to front the new national rugby league museum in Widnes. There is no reason why that should not happen, if the decision is as we heard today. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that the twin towers come to Widnes in my constituency?

Tessa Jowell: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that matter needs to be addressed and settled between the two relevant authorities: the Rugby League and the FA.

Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State will understand that all members of the all-party sport and leisure group, of which I am one of the vice-chairmen, have been very concerned about the saga of disasters connected with this matter. She will also recognise that just about every commentator outside this place has ridiculed all the disasters since she and her team took over from a previous Secretary of State who was sacked after agreeing to mishandle £20 million of public money on a handshake in a private house—a scandal that was successfully exposed by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Will the Secretary of State not recognise that, to paraphrase the words of a former Prime Minister, this has been a fiasco, wrapped in a shambles, surrounded by disaster, and that it is her fault?

Tessa Jowell: We have an Opposition in full rant this afternoon. I am not sure what that adds—it adds nothing to the necessary decisions and serious work in hand to deliver a national stadium.

Gisela Stuart: While I appreciate that the Secretary of State has the difficult task on her hands of bringing this matter to a successful conclusion, may I tell her that although those in Birmingham will appreciate the positive remarks in her opening statement, they will find it extremely difficult to understand what more they have to do to be given a chance to confirm their extremely good track record? We have built an international convention centre and an international exhibition centre. We have been able to deliver where other people have simply made empty promises, and to us what is happening seems like asphyxiation by procrastination.

Tessa Jowell: I give some advice to all my hon. Friends who have deployed their advocacy for Birmingham, and that is to lobby the FA because, as I have made absolutely clear, the Government hold a neutral position on the location of the stadium. The decision on the location of the stadium—[Laughter.] Again, we see the pointlessness of the Opposition, as they behave pathetically. The point is that the decision about the location of the national stadium is a matter for the Football Association.

Richard Ottaway: Does the proposal have the required agreement of the Mayor of London, who may well have a final veto in the matter?

Tessa Jowell: The Mayor of London has certainly been engaged in preliminary discussion about the development of the stadium, but that is a matter for the Football Association. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies the fine detail of the Carter report, the London development agency has offered up to £20 million in the event that the stadium proceeds in London.

Stephen McCabe: Given the number of qualifications in my right hon. Friend's statement, does she realise that, not just in Birmingham but throughout the country, people will be mystified as to how she and the faceless wonders at the FA can have any confidence in these proposals?
	May I put two simple questions to my right hon. Friend? First, can she say categorically that this is an FA project and that the Government are not partners in it, as certain people in the FA are claiming? Secondly, what will she do if the investigations reported in Australia into the activities of Multiplex reveal further damning condemnations of the activities of that company?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, but there are two Birmingham clubs in the FA—Birmingham City and Aston Villa—and they should be taking part in the debate in the FA, because it is a decision for the FA. I do not propose to comment on the newspaper reports to which he referred. I have set out very clearly the action that the FA proposes to take, and I would not add to that.

Nicholas Winterton: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's answers, and I appreciate the great problems that she has inherited and what she is trying to do to sort them out, but does she agree that this is a national stadium and, therefore, that the Government should have more say than they have apparently had to date? I strongly support locating the stadium in Birmingham because of that city's location and infrastructure, particularly its transport infrastructure, but will she not accept that a lot more people should be involved than just the FA, given that it is a national stadium? Will she consider suggesting that the FA and others should consult Manchester city council and the others who have been involved in producing some wonderful facilities for the Commonwealth games in Manchester next year?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I am glad that, unlike his colleagues, he recognises the complexity of this issue. I reiterate the points that I have made about the representations to be made to the FA about the stadium's location. He asks whether a national stadium is a decision for the Government, and the answer is no. In a democracy, not every decision that affects our nation is taken by the Government, and this decision on a national stadium is being taken by the FA, assisted and facilitated by the Government. He is right to draw attention to the preparations in Manchester for next year's Commonwealth games, which, I hope, will make people throughout the country feel proud and do an enormous amount for sporting morale here.

Andy Burnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the Wembley project was the pressure created by false deadlines for events that had not been secured? Anyone would think that the Conservative party was blameless, but does she also agree that the commitments to stage the World cup, the Olympics and the world athletics championships were first given by the Conservative party when it chose Wembley as the site for the national stadium?
	In endorsing the cautious approach that my right hon. Friend has announced today, I urge her to consider the wider issues raised by the Wembley saga. The truth is that the project has taken off in a way that it should never have gone—it was too extravagant, it was based on an experimental design and there was far too much commercial development. Will she consider the arm's length principle in the handling of sports funding? Will she also consider reviewing the outdated decision-making functions of some of our major governing bodies of sport?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his remarks. He is right that false deadlines can create more problems than they solve. I have made it very clear this afternoon that this project should proceed, but, as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), it is important to establish a time frame to create discipline. I also agree very strongly with his point about the importance of protecting the public interest. I do not for a moment underestimate or undervalue the significance of the fact that £120 million of lottery funding has already gone into the putative Wembley project. That money was raised by the public for the causes that they hold dear, and we have a special responsibility to ensure that that money is properly safeguarded, which is the whole driving purpose of the approach that I have outlined to the House this afternoon.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only a few hon. Members remain to be called. If they each ask one brief question, I shall be able to call every one of them.

Lynne Jones: When I and my constituents have had the chance to study Patrick Carter's report, are we likely to be convinced that my right hon. Friend's announcement is the logical outcome?

Tessa Jowell: Yes.

Andy Reed: Does not the business case for Wembley revolve around the fact that the FA already has £120 million of lottery money? Will the report into the feasibility of the stadium hosting athletics be carried out independently? It is obviously in the FA's interests to ensure that there is a favourable report that suggests that the stadium can host athletics, because that would mean that the FA could hold on to £20 million.

Tessa Jowell: First, the business case is certainly influenced by the fact that £120 million has already been spent on acquiring the Wembley site. Secondly, I hope that I have made it clear that the further work that needs to be done on the practical feasibility of holding athletics at Wembley involves a further investigation that will take time, but that needs to be carried out with the governing bodies of athletics. They will be the real judges of whether a potentially athletics-capable stadium can host athletics events.

Richard Burden: For people not just in Birmingham but throughout the regions, today's decision by the FA will send out an appalling signal. They will regard the FA's decision as having—I must say this—sweet FA logic.
	Given that Birmingham put forward a bid that was costed, that was ready to go and that had the support of the fans and the clubs, just how long will Wembley have to come up with something that is viable? It has not come up with anything viable so far. Although I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about deadlines, if she is saying that there is a time frame, what will it be? In Birmingham, we are ready to go and want to get on with the job.

Tessa Jowell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to maintain the case for Birmingham, but he must refer his remarks to the FA. In due course, the time scales for the decisions at the next stage and for the completion of the work that I have outlined will be published. However, the important point is that the project moves ahead with public confidence and with the confidence of those whose support is essential to securing it.

Peter Pike: I am a Burnley supporter who has always supported the Wembley option, but will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will now see an end to the talking and that the stadium will be built? Can we be assured that the transport links will be brought up to the standard that we need and that there will not be too many seats for the snobs and executives—and more for the fans who support the game throughout the length and breadth of this country?

Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just insisted that I remind the House that the national stadium will not go to Burnley. I can inform my hon. Friend that the lottery agreement sets out terms and conditions in relation to the balance of seats that he describes, and the material fact that led the FA to conclude that Wembley was more commercially viable related to the level of premium seat income. However, such matters will be judged more closely over the next few months as final decisions are reached.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that this is known as the national embarrassment stadium. She has inherited these problems and we all want them to be resolved, but I believe that Birmingham has a strong case and we should not rule it out or string along the people involved.
	Rugby league has not been mentioned, but is my right hon. Friend aware that Wembley is the national home of rugby league as well as of football? As a Bolton Wanderers fan, I recall the white horse final when Bolton beat West Ham.

Tessa Jowell: I remind my hon. Friend that the project is complex, as I am sure he recognises. It has taken a very long time to get to this stage. The first decisions were taken in 1995 and 1996. My job, and that of the Government, is to ensure that the final decisions represent the public interest and public value for money.

Derek Wyatt: May I tease my right hon. Friend about athletics? It is unlikely that we will bid for the world athletics championships until at least 2011, and the next Olympics that we could bid for will be in 2016. The technology for an athletics system might be outdated by then. If we are serious about going for 2011 or even 2016, we have to put the necessary infrastructure in place now. There is no point in having a system for athletics unless we are serious about 2011 and 2016.

Tessa Jowell: That is precisely why the technical matters to which my hon. Friend refers need to be considered by those who know about the standards that athletics bodies require to host an athletics championship. That is part of the business to be completed, which I mentioned earlier.

Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to get in just before the final whistle. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the stadium is not needed and, as far as I can see from surveys of England fans, not wanted? Would it not be better to pledge no further public money to the project, which would have the merit of ensuring that England football fans get what they want and that the FA cup final finds a permanent home in the finest stadium in the United Kingdom, Cardiff's millennium stadium?

Tessa Jowell: Nice try. My hon. Friend's arguments should be referred not to the Government, but to the Football Association, which will decide whether there is a national stadium and where it should be located.

International Force (Kabul)

Geoff Hoon: The recent Bonn agreement on the future governance of Afghanistan called for the deployment of an international force to Afghanistan to assist the new Afghan Interim Authority, which formally takes office on Saturday 22 December, with the provision of security and stability for Kabul.
	Two days ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the United Kingdom was willing, in principle, to lead such a force. I can now confirm that the United Kingdom is formally prepared to take on the leadership of an international security assistance force for a limited period of three months. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today written to the Secretary- General of the United Nations to inform him of our decision. That decision follows further discussions with the United States, the other nations that have indicated that they may be willing to contribute troops to the force, the United Nations and the designated leaders of the Interim Authority in Afghanistan.
	A number of issues are still to be finalised. We have not yet settled every detail about the force, but it is right that I should inform the House about progress so far, in particular about the letter to the UN Secretary-General, and today is the last opportunity for me to bring this before the House before the Christmas recess.
	As the Prime Minister emphasised, the situation in Afghanistan remains fragile. The international security assistance force is a vital part of the international community's efforts to assist the Afghan people in this early and difficult period of the reconstruction of their country. A deployment of this kind—involving troops, equipment and logistical support from several nations—is undoubtedly a complex undertaking. We have no illusions about Afghanistan. Deploying forces there inevitably involves an element of risk. It is a challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous environment.
	The force will be charged with assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding area. The ultimate responsibility for security will remain with the Interim Authority. Tasks could, however, include liaison with, and providing advice and support to, the Interim Authority as well as the UN on security issues, together with scoping future requirements for help in establishing and training the new Afghan security forces.
	The United Kingdom will provide the force commander and his headquarters. The force commander will be Major General John McColl, who is currently serving as the General Officer Commanding, 3(UK) Division, which is based at Bulford. General McColl, as the House will be aware, led last weekend's reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul. The force headquarters will also be drawn from 3 Division, as will some of its main force and many of its essential support troops. Other elements will be drawn from the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade, and key enablers and units that are maintained at very high readiness, including elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines and the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
	Indicative planning to date suggests that the United Kingdom's contribution will be in the region of 1,500 troops, although the actual figure will depend on the contributions made by other nations. The force will be an international force. It is too soon to say exactly how many troops it will include, or the nations from which they will come, but it will number 3,000 to 5,000 and will include contributions from the armed forces of several nations.
	Sixteen nations were represented at last Friday's conference for potential troop contributors, and 21 nations are represented at today's follow-on conference at the permanent joint headquarters in Northwood. We expect to establish the detailed force composition over the next few days. The United States has indicated that it fully supports the deployment of the force and will provide essential enabling support to deploy and sustain it, which is a vital and considerable task.
	The House will wish to know the arrangements for command and control. The force will have a particular mission, distinct from Operation Enduring Freedom. If the United Kingdom's offer to be lead nation is accepted, the United Kingdom will exercise command. As I have said, General McColl will be the force commander. The force will work very closely with the United States, as set out in the letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the United Nations Secretary-General, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
	I should like to place on record our gratitude to the United States, which has led the global coalition's offensive operations against international terrorism with great success. Its generosity in finding the capacity to support the international security assistance force by providing enabling capabilities that no other country can match should be recognised and applauded. I should also like to take the opportunity to record our appreciation to all the nations who have indicated that they are willing to provide troops. The international security assistance force is a reflection of the strong international support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and will go to Kabul with the backing of the wider international community. Work is under way in New York to draw up a United Nations Security Council resolution to authorise the deployment under chapter VII of the UN Charter. We anticipate that it will be agreed within the next few days.
	The House will have a number of proper questions about issues that have yet to be resolved. We have not yet finalised all the details of the force; there are still major questions, both about its exact size and precise composition, including which nations will contribute. We expect to refine the answers to those questions over the coming days. We need to agree with the Afghan authorities the precise tasks that the force will undertake and the modalities of its deployment. Let me be clear: the international community is sending the force to assist the Afghans, not to interfere in their affairs. Discussions with designated members of the Interim Authority, including its Chairman, Defence, Interior and Foreign Ministers, indicate that they welcome our intention to lead the ISAF.
	General McColl's reconnaissance and liaison team met leading designated members of the Interim Authority to discuss how the force could best assist the Afghans and how it should relate to the Interim Authority. Further discussions are required and General McColl will be returning to Kabul later this week. Those tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed military technical agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established. Once that agreement and the authorising UN Security Council resolution are in place, the international security assistance force will be able to deploy in full.
	Needless to say, British forces deploying to Afghanistan will be properly equipped for the tasks that they will undertake and they will be provided with robust rules of engagement. The United Kingdom has been invited to take on lead nation status because we and others believe that our forces have the capability and experience required to undertake that operation. We have the ability to get a force in and up and running very quickly. It is therefore right that we take on that responsibility when so much depends on the early success of the political process that the force will support.
	I am absolutely satisfied that the operation is within our capacity. Our commitment is limited in numbers—up to 1,500 troops—and duration, which will be up to three months. After three months, we will hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. There have already been indications that others may be willing to take this on. General McColl and his immediate team will return to Kabul later this week to continue detailed negotiations with the Afghan authorities on the terms of a detailed military technical agreement. They will also be present for the inauguration of the Interim Authority on 22 December. Troops from 40 Commando Royal Marines will be available to support General McColl and, if required, the Interim Authority. A company of Marines is being sent this week to bolster the existing presence at Bagram.
	The deployment of the main elements of the ISAF will be dependent on the outcome of discussions on the military technical agreement and the complexity of the task. Given the circumstances, the main body will not begin to deploy before 28 December at the earliest. It will then be some weeks before a substantial force can be deployed into Afghanistan.
	I am very conscious that our decision to lead this force will mean that some of our troops will not be able to spend Christmas with their families. Some of our troops have been at Bagram for some time. Separation from family and friends is never easy, least of all at this time of year. Our troops will, however, deploy to Afghanistan knowing that they will be carrying out a vital and a worthwhile task, contributing to restoring peace and stability to a country that has been torn apart by strife and international terrorism.
	In offering to be the lead nation for the ISAF and to deploy British troops to Afghanistan, we are aware that we have taken on significant responsibilities. The war there is being won; we must now secure the peace. The United Kingdom is proud to be able to play an important role in this. I am confident that we will.

Bernard Jenkin: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for delivering the statement on the last day of term. I am grateful to him for receiving a copy of it well in advance of his making it.
	We applaud the conclusions of the Bonn agreement to establish a broadly based administration in Kabul with international backing. We support the principle that an international security assistance force should be made available to help the new Government settle down. We have previously expressed our concerns about the British element of this deployment. These are concerns that the Prime Minister has acknowledged are perfectly legitimate. However, we fully respect the decision that the Government have now taken, and we will give our troops every support for the job ahead.
	I understand that there are many fundamental aspects of the deployment that have yet to be agreed. That underlines the need for clarity on these issues before the Secretary of State can finally agree to go ahead with the deployment. These aspects concern the nature of Afghan consent for the deployment of British troops, the level of US practical support for the British troops on this operation, the objectives of the British deployment, the funding of the deployment and the problems of overstretch.
	On consent, British forces have been pursuing a fighting role in Afghanistan. That has made us many enemies as well as friends there. A former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Bramall, warned on Monday that
	"as the realities of non-Muslim forces getting involved in internal domestic power struggles and squabbles sink in, their safety could become increasingly precarious."
	The new Afghan Defence Minister continues to issue conflicting statements, so what comfort has the Secretary of State been given to reassure him that the British will be welcome guests of all the main factions in Afghanistan?
	The rules of engagement must of course remain secret, but will they be agreed with the Afghans before deployment? The Prime Minister indicated that the stabilisation force will be deployed under a chapter VII UN mandate, as the Secretary of State has confirmed. Has that principle been accepted by the Afghans? Do we have armoured vehicles and munitions support to sustain a credible fighting force to carry out a chapter VII deployment?
	Secondly, on US support, the Americans have made it clear that they do not feel that they are suited to this role. Is the Secretary of State confident that the US is fully committed to supporting and sustaining, and if necessary to protecting, multinational forces in Afghanistan? Another former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Inge, warned the Government on Monday:
	"My biggest concern is that unless they have troops on the ground they will not concentrate or focus their minds in quite the same say."
	Who else but the Americans can provide the heavy lift, mobility, air cover, surveillance and the necessary logistical support for any sustained military engagements, and the means of extraction in case of an emergency?
	Will the United States have no command role at all? That is a surprise. Is the entire operation to be run from UK permanent joint headquarters? What experience does the PJHQ have in such a large multinational planning role?
	Thirdly, on the objectives, Lord Inge remarked:
	"The operational commitment has . . . 'mission creep' written all over it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 46-50.]
	The present Chief of the Defence Staff has described how we could
	"trap our hands in the mangle of Afghanistan".
	I am grateful for the assurance given by the Secretary of State that the deployment is not intended to extend beyond three months. However, Bosnia was meant to be a short-term deployment, and years later we still have thousands of troops there. Sierra Leone was meant to be "over in a month", according to the then Foreign Secretary. Yesterday we learned in a written answer that British troops will be there beyond two years.
	Fourthly, on the funding for the deployment, the most recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, said:
	"The defence programme was underfunded before 11th September. There is now a new commitment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 44.]
	Last week, the Chief of the Defence Staff commented starkly:
	"Something will have to give. . . we simply do not have the resources"—
	a point unanimously reinforced by the Select Committee report that came out this week.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £100 million allocated for the cost of Operation Veritas is less than his Department's underspend at the end of last year, which he was forced to surrender to the Treasury? When will he and the Prime Minister succeed in addressing the question of defence spending, which is running at £1 billion a year in real terms below the levels that they inherited five years ago, alongside considerably more deployed and more operational armed forces than they inherited?
	On the wider campaign, the Government will continue to have our fullest support for their conduct of the campaign against international terrorism. To that end, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm that the UK Government remain ready and willing, as he previously indicated, to support the United States in further military action in other countries where terrorism is tolerated or sustained, if that proves necessary and where justified by the evidence. Will the Government continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States for the long haul?
	We will give British forces our fullest support in the operation. Our soldiers are the finest in the world and they enjoy our absolute confidence. Knowing the Parachute Regiment, which is based in my constituency, I believe that its members will be itching to get on with the job. We wish them and the Royal Marines every success. We wish a happy Christmas to them and their families, who will be particularly in our thoughts at this time.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general support, although sometimes he does "but" a little too much in the way he appears to qualify his support. It is a charitable season, so I shall assume the most charitable interpretation of his reservations and try to deal with his observations.
	First, on the nature of Afghan consent, that will be dealt with in the military technical agreement. The hon. Gentleman will have read the terms of the Bonn agreement, under which the designated members of the Interim Authority signed up for precisely such a force, so they have already given consent. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in turn, if he will contain his impatience for a few seconds.
	On the level of US support, that is set out clearly in the letter to which I referred, which has been placed in the Library for all right hon. and hon. Members to see. I am sure that a detailed study of that letter will repay his concern.
	With regard to overstretch, I made it clear in my statement that the deployment is limited in numbers and time as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Obviously, any increase in our commitment has an impact on the level of activity of all our armed forces, whether they are deployed or remain in base. Nevertheless, I am confident that we can contain for this limited period the degree of impact on the armed forces to satisfactory levels.
	On rules of engagement, the Interim Authority will certainly be consulted, but I want to repeat to the House that the rules will be robust. The situation in Afghanistan is not easy and I shall take personal responsibility for ensuring that the rules of engagement are sufficient to allow our forces to protect themselves as they properly should. The chapter VII United Nations Security Council resolution is agreed by the designated Interim Authority. Equipment is a matter that is being considered today and tomorrow in the force generation conference. Obviously, that is the job of those who are responsible for putting together the package of armed forces and equipment that is necessary for this sort of operation. There has been close consultation with the United States on its command role. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter that has been placed in the Library.
	In terms of objectives, the hon. Gentleman referred to a long list of possibilities. The one thing that I have learned as a Minister in a number of Departments is that there are always reasons for not doing something. It is always possible to find a long list of risks and problems, but the responsibility of Governments and Ministers is to take decisions to do things. I am confident that it is right that we should take on this particular responsibility.
	On funding, I undertake to give the hon. Gentleman a brief about the way in which departmental funding works. I only wish that the Ministry of Defence had a real underspend on its budget. That would certainly make my life and those of my fellow Ministers a great deal easier. I promise that I shall explain to him precisely how the budget of the Ministry of Defence works.
	As for the United States, we are certainly willing to support it and to stand shoulder to shoulder with it in its leadership of the international coalition. I have no hesitation in saying that.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance notice of his statement.
	The Liberal Democrats have sympathy for yet another commitment that will separate even more British service men and women from their families while the rest of this country enjoys the Christmas and new year holiday, but we understand the importance of post-conflict rebuilding of a civil society in Afghanistan. The promotion of the rule of law is key to that process, as we know from the Balkans experience. The fact that UK forces are especially experienced to undertake this sort of operation makes us proud of them. Indeed, the whole House should be proud of them.
	May I ask the Secretary of State a few questions? He gave a time limit of three months. Can he tell the House whether any UK forces are being prepared in advance to replace the forces that are leaving in that three-month period, or can he give an absolute assurance that those forces will be replaced by forces of other nations? What about the many thousands of service men and women in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy who have now been out in the Arabian sea for some months, including for Operation Saif Sareea? Will they be rolled over or relieved before Christmas?
	On force protection, the right hon. Gentleman said that a letter concerning United States air cover had been placed in the Library, but are there any contingency plans for the UK to provide air cover RAF units to go out to Afghanistan to support the force on the ground? Finally, does he agree that the need for the UK to be in the lead again underlines the importance of establishing a proper EU military process and the need to get that up and running so that the burden can be shared. [Laughter.] The Conservatives laugh, but once again they criticise the Government for deploying forces and criticise a means by which they are trying, with support from the Liberal Democrats, to provide a solution.
	Rebuilding Afghanistan is a key part of the campaign against terrorism and the debt that the west owes to the much-abused people of that sad country. The Liberal Democrats wish the Government and our forces well in that task.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Let me deal as well as I can with his specific questions. I cannot give him an absolute guarantee about the precise three-month time limit. Such operations do not work in that way. For example, in Macedonia, the majority of forces deployed by the United Kingdom were withdrawn after the 30-day time limit. Several remained on the operation, essentially to hand over their knowledge and expertise about circumstances on the ground. I anticipate a similar handover process for the lead elements in the operation that we are considering.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about forces at sea is similar. Those matters are properly tackled in the chain of command. I assure hon. Members that when commanding officers make their decisions, they take full account of the length of time that our armed forces spend on specific operations.
	I specifically referred not to US air cover but to US support. However, the hon. Gentleman will find detailed reference to the support in the letter that was placed in the Library.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the United Kingdom being the lead nation. I do not agree with him about the development of a European Union military capability in the case that we are considering. The United Kingdom has received the request to be the lead nation because it is acknowledged that we have tremendous capability to do the job. We can get people into an operation quickly and organise an operation, especially one that is difficult and involves several elements from several different countries. Expertise, not simply the pursuit of dogma, is important.

Bruce George: I can give my right hon. Friend some clues about how the defence budget works: he should look over the road and talk to people at the Treasury.
	Why is the United States not prepared to do more at this stage than provide general support for the ground forces in Kabul? Will the large military presence of between 3,000 and 5,000 people, working alongside Afghan forces, operate only in Kabul or in any other cities?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept my right hon. Friend's comments about the United States. For example, the Americans have stated their willingness to organise the airstrip at Bagram for the considerable deployment and resupply of the force. That is an enormous task. The airstrip is not only relatively dangerous because of the unexploded ordnance, but primitive and basic. The Americans' willingness to take on the responsibility of ensuring that a significant number of flights can get on and off the airstrip and that appropriate air traffic control exists, and of supporting people as they get in and out of Afghanistan, is an enormous contribution. When my right hon. Friend gives the matter a few moments thought, I am sure he will realise that.
	It is important that my right hon. Friend does not underestimate the significance of United States involvement not only in Afghanistan but in other theatres. It has deployed many troops to tackle what continues to be the international community's primary concern: hunting down the remaining elements of al-Qaeda and ensuring that Afghanistan is never used again as a base for international terrorism. That is a great responsibility, of which the United States bears the lion's share.

John Stanley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be considerable concern that his statement contained no explicit reference to the way air protection cover will be provided for the international force? In his response to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, he appeared to dismiss the possibility. Will he clarify that fundamental point? Will the force be deployed with a clear agreement with the United States that it will provide air protection? Or will the international force be deployed without a formal agreement on air protection? If the latter is the case, the Government are proceeding with doubtful responsibility.

Geoff Hoon: I am a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on air protection, because although the ISAF is going into a dangerous environment on the ground—I am the first to concede that—there is no particular threat from the air in Afghanistan of which I am aware. On air protection, the right hon. Gentleman may be referring to a range of different ideas, but the truth is that extraction is the only issue that is particularly relevant. I am confident that we shall be able to secure the force's extraction when and if that becomes necessary. Again, we would not contemplate deploying a force if we were not confident that it could be deployed successfully to Afghanistan and sustain itself there for the time necessary.

Tony Worthington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. If Conservative Members did not know that this day would come, they are very foolish indeed. We are in the most difficult phase of the Afghanistan situation—the reconstruction—and security is everything. Without it, the other good things cannot occur.
	My right hon. Friend referred to training. Does he anticipate that, as in Sierra Leone, a major role for the international force will be equipping Afghanistan with its own army, which it does not have, and a police force, which is vital to the future and which it also does not have?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. The annexe to the Bonn agreement refers to the creation of an international security force and the importance of developing Afghanistan's security and armed forces. I anticipate that, in due course, the ISAF could begin to provide the necessary training and development of Afghanistan's armed forces, obviously so that they can protect themselves against further threats.

Gerald Howarth: This will clearly be a difficult mission. The Secretary of State says that he intends the force to be properly equipped—he used those words—and that discussions as to exactly how that will be achieved are still going on. It is essential that the force is properly equipped, so will he say whether other units of 16 Air Assault Brigade, in particular 7 Regiment Royal Horse Artillery based in Aldershot and 9 Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers, will be deployed? That would be helpful.
	On resources, the Secretary of State significantly failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the £147 million underspend last year. The recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff has said in the other place that the armed services were underfunded before 11 September, but we have committed to a raft of new engagements. Where will the money come from? The Secretary of State cannot keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, and I understand that there is no money left for training. Where will the new money come from to fund all these expeditions?

Geoff Hoon: On the equipment, I repeat what I said earlier: there is a force generation conference under way whose purpose is to assess the various offers from other countries in terms of the capabilities required and to put together a force package to do the job. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in the light of my statement—I would have much preferred to make it once the process is complete—but it is difficult to give precise answers to his detailed questions. However, having developed a concept, the forces offered will be applied to it, and I anticipate sufficient offers from sufficient countries to deal with any scenario required.
	Equally, depending on those offers, we may need to look elsewhere for other forces that might be deployed to Afghanistan, but that is not in my mind at present. I have been told that there are more than enough offers of people and equipment to satisfy the likely requirements in Afghanistan.
	I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied by my answer on spending. He should know that, under this Government, the money available to defence has increased significantly. The real defence spending cuts were conducted by Governments supported consistently by him. He consistently entered the Lobby to support a Government who cut defence spending by more than 20 per cent. and he must say why he did that, as he now comes to the House to complain when the defence budget is increasing.

Donald Anderson: Progress, both military and political, has been remarkable, and we should not allow it to lose momentum or to stall at this stage. My right hon. Friend said that we in the United Kingdom would lose our lead nation status in three months or so. Can he say what will happen then in terms of the commitment of UK forces? He said, for example, that there would be a role for those who would train a local police and military security force. Will we be involved in that from the start? If so, how many UK personnel are likely to be involved in a continuing commitment in Afghanistan?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend asked a fair question about what would happen at the end of the three months. I said in my statement that I anticipated a handover to another lead nation. There have been a number of indications of interest from our international partners, and I hope that following such a handover the process will continue in a still more benign environment. We envisage developments such as that mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the training and organisation of a future Afghan security force. I trust that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, however, if I say that it is a little early to anticipate those developments, although I would welcome them.

Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State now answer the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee—about resourcing? If it is really true, as the Secretary of State claims, that there was no underspend last year, at a time when our forces are so pitifully undermanned, the financial constraints must be even worse than the House thought. Can the right hon. Gentleman not understand why many Conservative Members, while strongly supporting our forces who are undertaking this dangerous and risky operation, are deeply concerned about the rapid worsening of overstretch?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, too, consistently supported a Government who consistently cut the defence budget. I do not recall his standing up at that time and whining in the way he is today—about a Government who have consistently increased defence expenditure. Unless he can sort out that dilemma, his comments cannot be taken seriously.

Malcolm Savidge: Is it not true that consolidating military success in Afghanistan by helping to stabilise the country will improve international security, while engaging in reckless military adventures elsewhere, as advocated by some extreme right wingers on both sides of the Atlantic, could make the world much less safe?

Geoff Hoon: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), there are always reasons for not making decisions and there are always reasons for making bad decisions. The exercise of judgment in Government is vital. I accept that different people would put their judgment in different places, but I am confident that the Government get it right.

Elfyn Llwyd: Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party fully support the international peacekeeping force.
	The Secretary of State said that the rules of engagement would be robust. Can he confirm that the force will undertake Petersberg tasks? Will he also confirm that if an extension of military action beyond the boundaries of Afghanistan were likely, the approval of the international community would be sought before such action was taken?

Geoff Hoon: I do not want to be drawn down either of those routes, because the hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate issues. The tasks for the force will be set out both in chapter VII of the United Nations Security Council resolution and, in a more detailed way, in the military technical agreement reached with the Afghans—based, obviously, on the terms of the Bonn agreement. I do not think either of the hon. Gentleman's points is relevant to what will be essentially a security assistance task in Afghanistan, as defined in that fashion.

Doug Henderson: I know that my right hon. Friend will have had advice from previous military chiefs of staff on the dangers of a peacekeeping force getting caught up in offensive action. I very much welcome the fact that the British lead of the peacekeeping force will be for three months. I realise that few nations could provide that lead at this stage.
	Is there anything in the military technical agreement between the different factions that will constitute the Afghan Government about how they will build their own security forces—their military forces or their law and order capacity through a police force?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend asks a good question about the security forces that will determine the safety and security of Afghanistan. In all honesty, I cannot give him a proper answer at this stage. The military technical agreement will be signed by the Interim Authority, so it will be signed on behalf of all the various factions that agreed the Bonn agreement.
	I recognise that a key question for the future of Afghanistan is whether the various factions are prepared to work together to rebuild their country. Crucially, the future of any Afghan army, security forces or police force must be central to that. That is what the international community and the Afghans must work towards. I am given confidence by the Afghans' willingness to move so quickly towards an agreement at Bonn, and their apparent determination to see that agreement fulfilled in full. That is why I believe that it is right for the United Kingdom and the international community to play their part in this process.

Mark Francois: The Chief of the Defence Staff has said publicly that something will have to give to allow this operation to take place. From which budget will this operation be funded: the Defence budget, the Foreign Office budget or the Government's contingency reserve? If something has to give to allow this operation to take place, what will that be?

Geoff Hoon: The funding for such operations comes from a number of different budgets. That is always the case. The Ministry of Defence will, as always, provide the salaries of those who are deployed, and it recognises that it is funded for that purpose. Other budgets, especially the contingency reserve, are routinely called on to support such operations. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact answer to his question that he desires, but it leads me to believe that Conservative Members need to spend some time studying how budgets for Departments operate.

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the international force will interface with a community in which the majority of women are deeply traumatised. Is he aware of the advice that the United Nations has given to Governments regarding special gender training of soldiers, which should be given to those who are entering into such post-conflict situations? Can he assure me that such training is being given? The Afghan women with whom I have contact, both in this country and in Afghanistan, welcome the international force and Britain's leadership of it.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, and I shall ensure that her suggestion is acted on.

Gregory Barker: Further to the question from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, could the Secretary of State enlighten us as to the thinking of our American allies? They have declined to put ground troops into the peacekeeping force. Were they led to the inescapable truth that, in a theatre as complex and dangerous as Afghanistan, they can be either peacemaker or protagonist, but not both?

Geoff Hoon: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. There will be United States forces on the ground. It is self-evident that there will need to be a US presence to operate an airstrip, as there is already in a number of operations inside Afghanistan. He is wrong to make that assertion. Given the tremendous contribution that the United States is already making with its offensive operations in and around Afghanistan, which require significant logistic support, he should not suggest that the US is not capable of involvement in the peacekeeping operation as well.

George Howarth: At the risk of being accused of advocating mission creep, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on whether it might be appropriate, in view of the training role that he envisages, to provide UK police and Customs and Excise resources to Afghanistan, so that the interim authority and any new security forces will be properly trained to deal with the drug situation, especially the heroin trade, which originates mostly in Afghanistan?

Geoff Hoon: Again, consistent with an answer I gave earlier, I anticipate that a range of requirements across Government functions will be needed by the interim Administration in Afghanistan. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's suggestions are passed on to the appropriate quarter.

Bill Wiggin: I believe that Lord Guthrie said that the Ministry of Defence was underfunded before 11 September. Was he wrong?

Geoff Hoon: I have worked closely with the noble Lord and we have had regular exchanges on the nature of the defence budget. I do not speak for the noble Lord, but I do speak for the Government. In assessing the budget of all Departments it is necessary to take some very difficult decisions sometimes, but this Government have consistently increased the amount spent on defence. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a relatively recent arrival, so I cannot blame him for supporting previous Conservative Governments who cut the defence budget, but I assure him that they did.

Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of an agreed United Nations international security and assistance force going to assist Afghanistan is a remarkable achievement, and one that not so long ago many of us would never have thought possible? Does he also agree that there are no armed forces better able or better trusted to lead it in its first, crucial stages than those of the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that it is contradictory of the official Opposition spokesman to express concerns about overstretch of our armed forces, but also to say that our armed forces should be willing and prepared to follow the US wherever it wants them to go?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend makes several good points, on which I am sure Opposition Members will carefully and maturely reflect. I hope that both sides of the House agree that in the immediate aftermath of the first launch of the military operations, no one would have thought that before Christmas we would be talking about a peace support operation, given the considerable dangers and difficulties involved in the offensive operations. That is a remarkable tribute to the leadership of the US and the support that several nations, including the UK and its armed forces, have been able to give.

George Osborne: Could the Secretary of State clear up the confusion between his statement, in which he mentioned a three-month deployment, and the letter from the Foreign Secretary to the UN Secretary- General, which has just been placed in the Library, which says that the deployment will end
	"no later than 30 April 2002."?
	That is four months. Is it three months or four months, and why did he not mention the 30 April date?

Geoff Hoon: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has had time for a close textual analysis of the letter and I am equally delighted that that is the only problem that he has been able to identify. The answer is straightforward and if he had listened carefully to what I said—perhaps he was too busy reading the letter—he would have noticed that I mentioned the difficulty of getting the force into Afghanistan and that the three months will run from the point at which the force is ready and doing its job.

Peter Kilfoyle: Anything done to ameliorate the Afghan tragedy is to be welcomed and, in that context, the Secretary of State's statement is welcome today. Given the comments made by Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, to the Royal United Services Institute and given the intention of the US Administration to extend the present campaign to other countries in the mid-east and the horn of Africa, does he envisage British forces being further involved in similar situations in countries attacked by the US in pursuance of its anti-terrorist strategy, or does he rule that out?

Geoff Hoon: The US and British Governments have worked together extremely closely during these offensive operations. We have had detailed consultations at every level of Government and of the military, and I anticipate that that will continue. I am sure, therefore, that, in appropriate circumstances, the UK will want to support the US in its continuing operations against international terrorism.

Hugh Robertson: I welcome the deployment, but I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). Air cover is an important element of these operations, and when I was with the UN operation in Bosnia, the UN—and the IFOR and SFOR follow-up forces—all used it. In his reply, the Secretary of State said that air cover would not be available and that it was merely used for insertion and extraction purposes. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that point?

Geoff Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) that I did not suggest that air cover was not available or that it was not required. I said that I did not see any immediate threat from the air. There may be a need for air cover, but that will certainly depend on judgments made by the military. The force generation conference will obviously make a military judgment about the requirement for air cover. If air cover is judged to be necessary, the relevant assets will be made available.

Roger Casale: I add my appreciation of the work of our armed services and intelligence services. They have performed remarkable work throughout the conflict. They have shown that they well deserve the confidence not just of the British people but of the whole international community.
	Is it not the case, as many hon. Members have seen at first hand in Kosovo and the Balkans, that troops may need to be deployed for some time if urgent humanitarian relief is now to be delivered by the non-governmental organisations, the UN, the EU and many other national Governments and international organisations? That relief is needed urgently if Afghanistan is to be set on the road to sustainable development in the longer term.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to urge caution about what is a highly dangerous mission. Does he agree that there is no doubt that Britain is well qualified to lead its initial stages? Does he agree that, without such a mission, there is no chance of a better future for the men, women and children of Afghanistan?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, especially for those in connection with the armed forces, which will be deeply appreciated.
	As for humanitarian relief, it is vital that there is a greater degree of security in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. I know that NGOs are working around the clock to deliver aid, especially given the onset of some pretty brutal weather in Afghanistan. We have had a considerable number of offers from other nations in the international community regarding the deployment of troops. They are willing to play their part, but not all will do so in the early stages of the process. I look forward to being able to tell the House in future of the contributions that other nations will be able to make.

Patrick Mercer: I am full of admiration for the troops who are about to deploy, but will the Secretary of State say whether 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and 40 Commando Royal Marines will be deploying at peace establishment or war establishment? In either event, which units have been stripped of manpower to make them deployable?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows better than I, those are matters for the military command chain. That is why such questions are left to the military leadership. Those officers provide advice to Ministers, who are ultimately responsible and accountable to this House.

Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State said that the mission for this force does not include the pursuit of al-Qaeda. However, it is possible that the pursuit elsewhere in Afghanistan might switch suddenly to the Kabul area. What preparations has the Secretary of State made to deal with that contingency?

Geoff Hoon: That is a fair question, and one that has been the subject of detailed discussions. It has been agreed with the US that there must be clear co-ordination on any deconfliction of operations involving American forces engaged in pursuing al-Qaeda and the peace support operation. I assure the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that absolute priority will be given to the pursuit of the remaining elements of al-Qaeda.

Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath

Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic church are able to succeed to the Crown; to amend the law relating to the parliamentary oath; and for connected purposes.
	As The Guardian said this morning, this is a modest measure. In July 2000, my noble Friend Lord Parekh presented a sadly neglected report from the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. He concluded that we are at a turning point in our history and can become inward looking or develop as
	"a community of citizens and communities".
	He called for politicians to show the courage of leadership.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has also called for leadership. He said that what Northern Ireland needs from its politicians, perhaps now more than ever before, is a common vision of a new inclusive society. A good starting point, he continued, would be a determination to tackle sectarianism. He described sectarianism as
	"a virus at the heart of Northern Ireland".
	Sectarianism taints every aspect of life that it touches.
	The Bill would strike at discrimination and intolerance in our society. I am looking to assist the process of inclusion—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's big tent. Some of the laws that I seek to amend are very old but that does not mean that they cease to have effect.
	The Bill is about putting our own House in order and recognising where tradition may directly or indirectly exclude a section of the community. It is about recognising those aspects of our traditions that may inadvertently cause offence and those that are in conflict with our commitment to a multi-ethnic future.
	Agreement to proceed with the Bill will have a dramatic effect. It will demonstrate the will of the House to modernise the constitution and all its workings. It will bring the foundations of our democracy into line with our obligations to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was a proud moment when this Parliament put into legislation the European convention on human rights.
	The first part of my Bill concerns the Treason Felony Act 1848. At the end of the last millennium, The Guardian wished to publish a series of articles advocating a republican Government in the United Kingdom. It was, however, prevented from doing so because section 3 of the 1848 Act makes it a felony not only—in this case very properly—to levy war against Her Majesty but to
	"compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose"
	her. Persons found guilty of such imaginings or of expressing their intention to abolish the monarchy, even by exclusively democratic and peaceful means, would be committing an offence punishable by life imprisonment.
	Anyone who is familiar with article 10 of the European convention on human rights knows that under the terms of the convention:
	"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities".
	So the publishers and proprietors of The Guardian wrote to the then Attorney-General seeking permission to publish such articles. Failing that, they would seek a declaration in the High Court that section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 should be interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and, consequently, that existing law would not criminalise the author of a newspaper article advocating peaceful change to a republic.
	On 8 December 2000, the then Attorney-General wrote:
	"It is not for any Attorney-General to disapply an Act of Parliament; that is a matter for Parliament itself."
	With this Bill, I intend to address the shortcomings of the 1848 Act; to make clear that it is no longer an offence to seek a change in the nature of government by democratic and peaceful means; and to give the House the opportunity to start disapplying.
	The second part of the Bill would amend those aspects of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701 dealing with succession to the throne, in order to remove discrimination against Roman Catholics. The Act is extremely offensive in that regard. It stipulates that
	"those who profess the Popish religion"
	can neither be monarchs nor marry into the royal family.
	In December 1999, Members of the Scottish Parliament unanimously adopted the following motion:
	"That the Parliament believes that the discrimination contained in the Act of Settlement has no place in our modern society, expresses its wish that those discriminatory aspects of the Act be repealed".—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 December 1999; Vol. 3, c. 1636-37.]
	However, the repeal of such legislation is a matter reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament, so we should address it.
	I am not persuaded by those who say that to enshrine sectarianism in legislation is unimportant or by those who argue that such a move would require legislation in all the 15 Commonwealth countries that recognise the Queen as their head of state. It is important, and we can act without reference to those other kingdoms.
	Article 9.2 of the European convention on human rights provides:
	"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
	Our European partners in Luxembourg, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands all maintain a constitutional monarchy. None requires the restriction of access to the throne on the ground of religious belief.
	The Prime Minister is on record on this issue. He shares my belief that the anti-Catholic aspects of the Act of Settlement are plainly discriminatory. I was happy to note that he promised to re-examine the issue during his second term. This is his second term and my Bill would permit the House to offer him the opportunity to conduct that re-examination.
	The final aspect of my Bill relates to amendment of the Oaths Act 1978. Such amendment would address from a different angle matters raised in the Chamber yesterday. It would remove the requirement that an elected Member of Parliament take the present Oath of loyalty to the monarch and would provide an alternative—a modern oath of affirmation. The Oath could take the form suggested by my right hon. Friend, the former Member for Chesterfield, Tony Benn:
	"I do solemnly Declare and Affirm that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here."—[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 379.]
	Such an alternative—it would not be mandatory—would cover the point and would get rid of many of our current problems.
	Since I last argued this matter, I have had the benefit of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Buscarini and Others v. San Marino. In that case, three individuals elected to the Parliament of the Republic of San Marino challenged the requirement that they take the oath as prescribed by law. They submitted that the exercise of a fundamental political right such as holding parliamentary office should not be subject to publicly professing a particular faith—in breach of article 9 of the European convention.
	The Government of San Marino maintained that the wording of the oath was not religious but
	"historical and social in significance and based on tradition"
	and that the form of words at issue had
	"lost its original religious character".
	The European judges stated that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in article 9 constitutes one of the foundations of a "democratic society" within the meaning of the convention. The Court's comments regarding article 9 are important for us. It explained that
	"it would be contradictory to make the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to prior commitment to a particular set of beliefs"—
	to the taking of a particular oath.
	I believe that we can get rid of the indignity and absurdity that have characterised the taking of the Oath. We can return to a situation where the occasion is treated with solemnity, because people will return to a position where they are doing something voluntarily, not because it is insisted on or directed, and they can do it with a free conscience.
	These three measures—the right to argue, without fear of punishment, for a republic or to replace the monarchy; the right to marry a Catholic or be a Catholic and still be able to be the head of state, and the right of the Oath—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Ian Paisley: I oppose the motion. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is seeking to undermine the constitution, all through the dominion of what we call a ten-minute rule Bill. He has raised matters of deep constitutional meaning, which have a meaning for us all. Surely if we are going to review—and change—the constitution of this United Kingdom, that deserves more than a ten-minute Bill, because such a Bill has neither the time nor the capacity to deal with such issues.
	I want to take up some immediate questions. The hon. Gentleman laid great emphasis on Europe, and on how Europe feels, and said that those in Europe look upon our constitution as bigoted and discriminatory. However, article 16 of the constitution of Spain underscores the special relationship of Spain with the Roman Catholic Church, and says that the only successors who may enter into the monarchic relationship in Spain must be successors of His Majesty Don Carlos. That house is of course a strictly Roman Catholic house, and those successors are strictly Roman Catholic.
	In Belgium, which is also a Roman Catholic country, the king himself—not the law but the king—can decide who his successor should marry, and if the successor marries without the king's consent he cannot be king. The written constitution says that the rightful succession is through the descent of the Roman Catholic Saxe-Coburg dynasty.
	In Sweden, which is also a member of the European Union, the king must always profess the pure Evangelical Lutheran faith as adopted and explained in the unaltered Constitution of Augsburg. According to the resolution of the Uppsala meeting in the year 1593, princes and princesses of the royal house must be brought up in the same faith and within the realm. Any member of the royal family not professing that faith will be excluded from all rights of succession.
	Let us look at Denmark, which is also a member of the European Union. Part 2 of its constitution states that the king shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and according to section 4 of the constitution, the Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the established Church of Denmark.
	If one looks to the Netherlands, one finds in article 24 of the constitution that the succession to the throne is hereditary and limited to the legitimate descendants of King William I—not King William III, but King William I, Prince of Orange: a Protestant succession indeed.
	So two Roman Catholic countries in the European Union say that they should have a Roman Catholic monarch, and the other countries that I have mentioned say that they should have a Protestant monarch.
	The emphasis of the Bill of Rights of 1688 was not on religion, but on the security of this nation, and the Act is based on that security. Under the reigns of Bloody Mary and King James, this nation learned that it was not safe. That was the basis on which that Bill was drafted, and the Williamite revolution settlement is the basis for our constitutional position.
	The Williamite revolution settlement has served this nation well in the past, and to say now that our hands should be put to the job of dismantling that settlement is strange, for we do not know what people want to put in its place. What will be put in the place of the Williamite revolution settlement?
	I do not hear any agitation among nonconformists about the fact that the Queen is the supreme governor, or head, of the Church of England. They do not say that that is a terrible thing and that they are slighted because the monarch cannot be a nonconformist. I do not hear that at all, and I tell the House that we should not put our hands to destroying something that has served this country well, and replace it with something that is the subject of debate in a courthouse in Europe.
	Those in Europe seem to be saying, "Don't do as we do, do what we say you should do." Let them deal with those matters before they lecture the House and the United Kingdom and tell us that we are discriminatory and bigoted. That is a matter that they have to face up to, and they should do so realistically. The House would be well advised to say, "No. We cannot put our hands to such a proposal at the present time." However, if the Government are interested in this matter, as they have stated, it is their responsibility to propose such a Bill and to give proper time for its debate, argument and consideration.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
	The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 32.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kevin McNamara, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Paul Flynn, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Andrew Mackinlay, Kevin Brennan and John Austin.

Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath

Mr. Kevin McNamara accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic church are able to succeed to the Crown; to amend the law relating to the parliamentary oath; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January, and to be printed [Bill 77].

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

Dwelling-houses

That the draft Deregulation (Disposals of Dwelling-houses by Local Authorities) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	Question agreed to.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we come to the next item of business, could you inquire whether it is possible to make available copies of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, under which the extradition regulations are to be made? As you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Act received Royal Assent in the early hours of Friday morning. We all understand the haste with which the last stages proceeded, but when inquiries were last made in the Vote Office, copies of the Act were not available. Is it possible and proper for Parliament to debate regulations when it is not possible to obtain copies of the Act under which they are to be made?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is in fact a point for debate. Ministers who are present will have heard his comments.

Simon Hughes: With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that cannot be a point for debate. The regulation is to be made under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. The conditions of the relevant section of that Act were controversial; they have been debated and changed by Government amendment and by negotiation in the past couple of days. It is therefore very important that my colleagues have the final wording of what is permitted under that section, as opposed to what was in the original drafting. As a matter of principle, I think that we should have the Act. But if we cannot have it, it is proper that we should have its final section, which received Royal Assent last Friday.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman: there is nothing to stop the debate proceeding. That is the intention of the motion on the Order Paper.

Extradition

Keith Bradley: I beg to move,
	That the draft European Union Extradition Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
	In moving the 2001 regulations, I shall start by responding to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Obviously, it would be preferable for the hon. Gentleman to have a copy of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As he knows, it includes an enabling provision, which we approved, to allow debate on the regulations. I know that he does not have the precise words of that provision, but is only an enabling measure and does not affect our ability to debate the regulations, of which I hope he has the full text.

Simon Hughes: I have the full text. Will the Minister explain why he is introducing what he called the 2001 regulations, whereas the published regulations include the words "Regulations 2002"?

Keith Bradley: I apologise for the error. I am sure that Hansard will correct it and make sure that the right regulations are in the text of our debate. Clearly the season of good will has not yet hit Liberal Democrat Members.
	I am pleased to be able to introduce the regulations, both because they are intrinsically worth while, as I hope I shall be able to demonstrate, and because, as I have just pointed out, they are the first such regulations to be made under the provisions of section 111 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which received Royal Assent last week.
	The regulations demonstrate the value of the enabling power that that section created. The changes that they make are desirable, but essentially quite minor. It would simply not be worth devoting the parliamentary time that would be required to enact primary legislation to give effect to their content; the previous Government were evidently of the same view, because they did not introduce primary legislation to make the required changes when they were in office.
	Now, however, we have the opportunity to give effect to the 1995 and 1996 European Union conventions on extradition, which will bring our extradition arrangements more closely into line with those of most of our European partners.
	Before describing in detail what the regulations do, I shall say a little about what they do not do. They do not give effect to the European arrest warrant, which is a subject that has attracted some comment in recent weeks. I therefore do not propose to deal with that. The necessary legislation to give effect to that instrument will be contained in an extradition Bill, which will be introduced early in the new year. There will be adequate opportunity to debate that Bill, which will go much wider than Europe, and cover our extradition relations with the rest of the world.

Gerald Howarth: Does that mean that the Home Secretary cannot be extradited from the United Kingdom for xenophobia?

Keith Bradley: I shall continue with the serious elements of the debate.
	As I have said, the regulations are designed to give effect to two European conventions. These are formally known as the convention on simplified extradition procedures between member states of the European Union of 1995, and the convention relating to extradition between member states of the EU of 1996. The first was signed on 10 March 1995 and the second on 27 September 1996. The two conventions make a number of changes to speed up and simplify extradition between EU member states, and require amendments to the Extradition Act 1989.
	Assuming that the regulations are agreed to, they will come into force 90 days after the date of the United Kingdom's notification of our ratification to the Secretary General of the Council of the EU under the provisions of the conventions, which we intend will happen immediately.
	Currently, extradition between member states of the EU takes place on the basis of the European convention on extradition of 1957—the ECE. The two conventions amend the provisions of the ECE between EU states. Their provisions do not affect our extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland, as those are regulated not by the ECE but by reciprocal legislation.
	We are bringing the regulations forward in advance of the extradition Bill, which will be introduced in the new year to meet the deadline for the ratification of the two conventions by all member states set by the special Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September as part of its response to the terrible events in the United States on 11 September.
	The conventions are nothing new. Indeed, they were the impetus for the review of extradition law that began in 1997. That was ultimately to lead to the consultation paper published earlier this year entitled "The Law on Extradition: a Review", which contained nine specific recommendations regarding the two conventions, as well as a wide range of other proposed amendments. A summary of the responses received was placed in the Library, as well as on the Home Office website, on 24 October. In addition, the conventions were subject to, and cleared, the parliamentary scrutiny process while they were being negotiated.
	The amendments to the Extradition Act 1989 are set out in schedule 9 to the draft regulations. They are limited to countries in respect of which the conventions are in force between them and the UK. The provisions of the conventions, and hence the amendments to the Extradition Act, apply only to requests made after the regulations come into force.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have been reading the regulations and schedule 9. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the proposed regulations, anyone indicted under the recently passed terrorist legislation could be extradited without having appeared in open court in the United Kingdom, or am I wrong about that?

Keith Bradley: My understanding is that my hon. Friend is wrong on that point. However, I shall check. I hope that I shall be able to respond later. I do not want to mislead him. If he cannot remain in his place throughout the debate, I shall certainly write to him. It is important that we get these things right.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend. If the regulations applied to someone indicted under the legislation that we have so recently passed, could he or she be extradited without having gone through a legal process either here or in the extraditing country?

Keith Bradley: The arrangements must come into force through the regulations. The process of extradition would go through the process of request. The issues that relate to the amendments would apply if they applied to that situation. They would not apply retrospectively. There would need to be a request from the requesting state, and a response from us as the requested state.

Simon Hughes: Perhaps it is appropriate to ask the Minister now if at some stage he will set out which other countries are involved. In theory, that could mean all the EU countries—but I gather that they are not yet all parties to the conventions. It would be helpful to have the current lists of the two sets of countries.

Keith Bradley: I will provide that information during the debate. As I have said, the provisions of the 1989 Act will continue to apply, so extradition will be able to take place only after there has been a hearing in open court. These provisions do not affect that process.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way again?

Keith Bradley: I would like to make progress. I shall give way just once more.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend has been patient. He will understand, however, that there are genuine concerns.
	If someone were arrested in this country as a deemed international terrorist, under an order made by the Home Secretary, is it right to say that they could not be extradited under the Act, but only after going through a process governed by earlier legislation, which would mean an open court rather than the closed sessions envisaged in the Act that the House has just passed?

Keith Bradley: That is my understanding. If further clarification is needed, I shall write to my hon. Friend.
	As I have said, the amendments to the Extradition Act are set out in schedule 9 to the draft regulations. They are limited to countries in respect of which the conventions are in force between them and the UK. The provisions of the conventions, and hence the amendments to the Extradition Act, apply only to requests made after the regulations come into force. I shall mention the countries later.
	It may be helpful if I set out in more detail the provisions of the two conventions and the amendments to the Extradition Act that the regulations will make. The 1995 convention sets out streamlined procedures for cases in which the fugitive and the requested state consent to extradition. When a person is arrested pursuant to an extradition request, they are to be informed of the possibility of consenting to their surrender under the simplified procedure. The convention sets out the conditions under which consent can be given. It must be expressed voluntarily and in full awareness of the consequences.
	The convention sets out various deadlines on the stages of the case, the most notable of which is that the individual must be surrendered within 20 days of the requested state making its decision. Consent may not be revoked, and in consenting to extradition the fugitive is also renouncing specialty and re-extradition protection. The regulations make changes to sections 6, 9, 14 and 18 of the 1989 Act to implement those provisions.
	The 1996 convention makes a number of amendments to the provisions of the ECE. Its main provisions are as follows: to reduce the extradition crime threshold from 12 months in both the requested and the requesting state, to 12 months in the requesting state and six months in the requested state; the abolition of the political offence exception; and a provision that a person who has been extradited may be proceeded against for an offence committed before surrender other than that upon which the request for extradition was based, without obtaining the consent of the requested member state where the offence is not punishable by imprisonment or any other form of detention or where the person will not be detained in connection with his trial, sentence or appeal. Finally, there is relaxation of authentication requirements, which is particularly important for us as it is widely recognised that the UK's authentication requirements are among the most onerous in Europe.
	I promised that I would respond to the question about the countries that had not yet ratified the conventions. In the case of the 1995 convention, those are France, Belgium and Italy; in the case of the 1996 convention, France and Italy. They have all undertaken to ratify by 1 January 2002, and all other EU member states have ratified both conventions. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
	The regulations make amendments to sections 2, 6, 18 and 26 of the Extradition Act 1989 to achieve the changes that I outlined. In addition, there are some provisions in the 1996 convention that we can implement without the need to amend the 1989 Act. The main ones include article 3, which relaxes the principle of dual criminality for the offence of conspiracy or criminal association to commit certain serious crimes, including terrorist offences. The regulations do not make any legislative changes in respect of this article, as the UK can already extradite in all the circumstances covered by the article.
	Similarly, article 6 provides that extradition is not to be refused for offences related to taxes, duties, customs and exchange which correspond under the law of the requested member state to a similar offence. Extradition may not be refused on the grounds that the law of the requested member state does not impose the same type of taxes or duties or does not have the same type of provisions in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange. No changes to the Extradition Act 1989 are required to implement article 6.
	Article 7 states that extradition shall not be refused on the ground that the person concerned is a national of the requested state. There are no legislative implications for the UK, as we do not currently refuse extradition on those grounds. However, it is an important provision for those of our European partners that have traditionally been reluctant to extradite their own nationals, such as Germany and Greece.

Simon Hughes: I accept the Minister's assurance that the regulations do not change the law in respect of the offences to which he referred, but it would be helpful if he could provide, in his winding-up speech or later, a definition of the categories of offences under article 3—terrorism, drug trafficking and other organised crime. Otherwise, where do people look for such a definition?

Keith Bradley: I shall endeavour to provide a definition in the course of the debate, but if that is not possible, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give as much detail as I can.
	I hope that I have not been too technical. The Government believe that the changes are desirable. Although the changes proposed are hardly earth- shattering, they should help to simplify and speed up extradition between EU member states. The regulations will also enable the UK to honour an important international obligation and will contribute in yet another way to the fight against terrorism. I trust that they will be supported by the official Opposition—after all, the two conventions were agreed in 1995 and 1996 and signed by the UK in those years—and I hope that they will also be supported in all other parts of the House.
	I remind the House that very recently, during the debates on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which received Royal Assent last week, it was accepted in both Houses that it was right for the conventions to be given effect under the enabling powers in that Act. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the House.

Humfrey Malins: It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly on the motion to approve the European Union Extradition Regulations 2002. I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he introduced them. The official Opposition do not find them controversial and will not oppose them.
	Crime is increasingly an international phenomenon. Criminals have no respect for territorial boundaries, and the freedom of movement that the single market gives to Europe's peoples and businesses unfortunately creates new opportunities for criminals to expand their illegal activities. That creates a serious challenge for our law enforcement agencies and our different criminal systems. Measures and actions taken by our Government and other EU Governments to increase co-operation between member states in speeding up the bringing of criminals to justice are to be welcomed by us all.
	It is important to recognise that the EU is made up of a diverse group of nations with different legal traditions. Criminal law is, rightly, a matter for each member state to decide for itself. Let us recognise that each member state may protect human rights in a different way. Let us also recognise in a debate such as this some practical difficulties, including language difficulties.
	Liberty is, of course, the most important freedom. Any steps taken by any Government must be in accordance with that freedom. Each state must protect the rights of its citizens and of those resident within its borders. With that background, I shall say a little about each of the conventions with which are dealing—first, the convention on simplified extradition procedure, the 1995 convention.
	Extradition law is complicated. My friends the district judges at Bow street magistrates court have mastered the subject, but few others have ever been able to do so. We know of the complex stages in extradition and of the potentially lengthy time scale involved, so it is refreshing to see the word "simplified" in the title. Under the measure, member states undertake to surrender to each other, under simplified procedures, persons sought for the purposes of extradition, subject to the consent of such persons and the agreement of the returning or the requested state.
	May I raise one or two queries with the Minister? If he cannot deal with them during the debate, perhaps he could write to me. First, can he confirm that the person's consent will not be given only orally, but that it will be required to be confirmed by the person in writing?
	Next, in article 5 of the 1995 convention, there is reference to the "competent authority" of the requested state. In article 7, there is reference to the "competent judicial authority" of the requested state. "Competent authority" for the UK is defined in schedule 2 of that convention as
	"the Home Office, the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Executive Justice Department, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) and a sheriff of Lothian and Borders."
	However, I do not see anywhere a definition of a competent judicial authority, which seems to be a different authority from a competent authority. I assume, and perhaps the Minister will confirm, that the competent judicial authority will be the senior district judge or another district judge, magistrates courts. Will the Minister also confirm that the person for whom extradition is sought will have a right not only to choose his or her counsel—I assume that there will be a free choice in that regard—but to claim legal aid, subject to the normal means test?
	I should like to turn briefly to the 1996 convention. Like the 1995 convention, it allows the Government to retain their role in the extradition process and protects the concept of dual criminality, which is dealt with in article 2, and speciality, which is dealt with in article 10. It is worth pointing out that the 1996 convention has nothing to do with the proposed EU arrest warrant, about which we will have a great deal to say in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that we can take the festive mood of the House—at least, it seems festive at the moment—into the new year, but we will, of course, be considering the EU arrest warrant, and I suspect that the atmosphere may change a little—if not a lot—when we do.
	I should like to raise with the Minister a couple of queries in relation to the 1996 convention and especially article 10. I referred to the protection of the concept of dual criminality and to the issue of speciality. I think that article 10 relates to a person who is to be dealt with by a court in the requesting country, perhaps for an offence that is separate and was not included, so to speak, in the initial proceedings. It states:
	"A person who has been extradited may . . . be prosecuted or tried"
	for that sort of offence when it is
	"not punishable by deprivation of liberty."
	We all understand that. It goes on to state that such a person may be prosecuted if the proceedings
	"do not give rise to the application of a measure restricting his personal liberty".
	We understand that also, but it seems possible that the person could be dealt with if the offence, which was not known about earlier, is met with a financial penalty, which is another method of punishment. Certainly, in this country—I believe that this also applies in other countries—if one is given a financial punishment, but cannot manage the payment, which could be very large, one suffers a custodial sentence in lieu. I hope that we are not facing the prospect of a sleight of hand in terms of the absence of protection for such a person. On the face of the regulations, that protection appears strong, but I hope that that strength is actual and that the Minister can comment on that point.
	That is as much as I need to say about the regulations. I have not exactly given them a thundering welcome, but as the Minister said, the conventions are from 1995 and 1996, and the EU arrest warrant is not an issue for debate now. It is proper, therefore, that the Opposition should act responsibly and take no steps that would result in a vote against these sensible measures.
	I see that I have been on my feet for nine minutes. An hon. Friend sitting not more than six feet away from me suggested earlier today that three minutes might be a suitable period in which to advance my arguments. He did not recognise, however, that I am a lawyer by background, and very few lawyers ever manage such brevity.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I declare an interest, as I am not a lawyer—probably the only non-lawyer to speak in the debate?

Keith Bradley: I am not a lawyer.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am in good company.
	I shall be brief. I rise because I was slightly concerned by the fact that when the Minister introduced the regulations, he set them in the context of the current issues of terrorism and the legislation that the House enacted last week—in my view, regrettably—to bring into effect new anti-terrorist measures. It seems that there is a danger of confusing several issues. If I understood correctly what he said later and what the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said in his speech, the regulations have their basis in the 1995 and 1996 conventions. While some terrorist offences may be covered in that regard, I would like it to be confirmed that the new legislation does not apply to the regulations.
	It is important that we set the record straight on that, because in the legislation that we passed last week, we not only sought a derogation from the European convention on human rights in respect of part of its operation, but passed into law the ability of the Home Secretary to try somebody on the basis of private information and put them in prison. The measure ensured that such a person could appeal only to a private committee in which they would not see the evidence against them. The only right of appeal will be based on a point of law and dealt with through a judicial review process, where, again, the evidence would not be tested in court. I would find it horrific if legislation of such a standard was then used as a basis for extradition, so I would be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that I am wrong about that.
	Will the Minister also confirm another point made by the hon. Member for Woking and give an assurance that legal aid will be available, providing that the defendant fulfils the normal criteria? It is important to ensure openness and justice, so legal aid is very important.
	I make my final point having sat through days of hearings on the application of the Spanish courts to the English courts to extradite General Pinochet to Spain so that he could face charges there. It was a fascinating experience and the standard of legal argument was very high. A number of landmark judgments were made, not the least of which was the House of Lords ruling on the right to try people for offences committed elsewhere in the world. At the end of the day, however, the extradition hearings and debate did not add up to very much, because the Home Secretary has the final say in these matters and considerable discretion. In the case of General Pinochet, he used that discretion in respect of the rather curious wording "humanitarian grounds", under which it was decided that General Pinochet was not fit to stand trial. He was then allowed to return to Chile, where further legal action against him was contemplated and indeed attempted.
	Will the Minister explain exactly what discretion the Home Secretary has? In relation to all the other contracting parties to the extradition arrangement, will the equivalent Home Secretary or Minister of the Interior again have the final say, or will the extradition proceedings with which we are dealing take away such discretion and allow compulsory removal of the accused person from this country, providing that the legal arguments stand up in court? In the whole Pinochet experience, it seemed to me that justice was not done in the end because of the powers of discretion that were available to the Home Secretary and to the equivalent Ministers of the Interior elsewhere. If extradition is to mean anything, it must be decided on legal grounds rather than on the basis of political discretion, which is what is available under current extradition arrangements.

Simon Hughes: This is a bit of a challenge for all of us. The Minister, who took interventions, was good enough to keep his speech to 17 minutes, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) took 10 minutes, and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) five. I am, therefore, conscious that there is a challenge and that we nearly stand between this place and its holiday. We also face a challenge because the regulations are a serious matter and the final Adjournment debate is on spina bifida, which is also a serious matter. Only between the debates is the more festive element to which the hon. Member for Woking referred, in respect of why we should or should not go on holiday—something that we all hope to do when we break up at the end of this evening. In case I am accused of misrepresentation, I know that the House of Lords is sitting tomorrow and does not break up until then.
	We are considering the last Home Office business of this calendar year and of this term. It is no coincidence that Question Time on the first day after the recess was followed by a statement from the Home Secretary about the consequences for this country of the events of 11 September. Several of us who are present are responsible for Home Office business in our parties, and I am conscious that a lot of legislative water has flowed under the bridge since our return. The motion is only a trailer for the next torrent. We hope that there will be a gap of a few weeks before it.
	We are considering the first and least controversial of at least three substantial extradition matters. We shall subsequently discuss the European arrest warrant, which is controversial, and an extradition Bill, which is both technical and controversial.
	The Government clearly stated to Opposition parties and Labour Members that the United Kingdom had an obligation to implement the two conventions by the end of the calendar year. Under an agreement with European Union member states, we said that we would enshrine them in law. As hon. Members have said, we signed them six and five years ago respectively, but we cannot ratify them until we have legislated. The Government therefore approached both main Opposition parties and asked whether we would be content to legislate by the method that we are considering.
	The usual method is primary legislation. Like the hon. Member for Woking and Conservative Members, Liberal Democrat Members decided that it was important to honour our international obligations. We therefore accepted that the conventions could and should be two of only four matters that are implemented under the European third pillar arrangements, which cover justice and home affairs, through secondary legislation. We accepted that process to honour Britain's obligations to our partners, and because while the conventions are technical and complex, their substance is relatively uncontroversial.
	The Liberal Democrats are happy for extradition to be made simpler and for the process to be improved without eating into individuals' rights. The record of the hon. Member for Islington, North on such matters is good and reliable. It is right to flag up the big issues on extradition procedure. We will debate them in the new year when the Bill is introduced.
	It is reasonable to have speedier processes when people consent to extradition. That is the core of the 1995 convention. It is also reasonable to try to deal with some of the more complicated issues in the 1996 convention. I was grateful for the Minister's answer that the three other countries that have not yet ratified are, like us, obliged to do that by the end of the year. The conventions will therefore apply to France, Italy and Belgium, provided that they get their house in order, as well as to us and other EU countries by 31 December.
	Let us consider the controversial issues. Under the conventions, individuals who are extradited for substantive, major matters can be tried for subsidiary, less important matters. That is valid, provided that they are genuinely minor and not other major offences.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding that, under the proposed regulations, people who have been extradited from this country to another EU country cannot subsequently be charged with an offence other than that for which they were extradited?

Simon Hughes: That is not correct. I think that the arrangements provide that, for example, someone who was extradited for trafficking people or drugs could be charged with a subsidiary offence of cheque fraud or a crime for which the penalty falls short of imprisonment. Another example is a driving licence offence for which the penalty would be a fine. The technical answer is therefore no, but the offence must be subsidiary. We must protect the guarantee that people will be tried only for subsidiary matters. The hon. Member for Woking is more knowledgeable than me about such matters, but I believe that a subsidiary offence is defined as "non- imprisonable".
	The conventions reduce the severity of the punishment for the offence for which one can be extradited. The Minister mentioned a six-month term of imprisonment. They also prevent people from arguing before British or EU authorities that their extradition is sought for a political offence. That is important. If we sign up to the conventions, we accept that there is no such thing as a political offence in the EU. That appears proper to me. I would not accept it in the case of other countries.
	The conventions allow for a wider definition of terrorism and related offences than we would perhaps ordinarily wish. We have already permitted such a gateway through legislation. To be fair, the Opposition parties agreed to it, but the Government will use it for only seven months, until the end of next June. After that, they cannot try to implement other such measures without primary legislation, for obvious reasons. We wanted only immediate and specific anti-terrorist legislation to be made through secondary legislation. That is why I asked in an intervention whether at least definitions could be provided of the three broad heads: terrorism, trafficking and drug-related offences.
	The conventions also technically allow dual criminality. They allow extradition for something that is not deemed to be a specific offence in the same terms in another country. However, that is subject to twin protections. First, the provision lasts for only seven months; the orders can be passed only in the seven-month period. Secondly, it is limited to the three general heads that I mentioned.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) mentioned controversial subjects such as xenophobia, environmental crime or crime that is related to information technology, which have nothing to do with terrorism. Their definition can be wider than that for specific offences. There will properly be much debate about whether dual criminality should apply to them and whether people could be extradited for such controversial matters that do not constitute crimes in the country from which they are being taken. We will revert to such matters.
	We would normally wish to discuss the arrangements at greater length in Committee and deal with them through primary legislation. The House's acceptance, and especially that of Liberal Democrat Members, of the foreshortened process is the exception rather than the rule. We have accepted it because of two pressures. First, the previous Government contracted the obligation to implement the conventions by the end of the year, and it is important to honour our international obligations. Secondly, the events of 11 September mean that there is a desire to get maximum agreement throughout the EU about non-controversial matters.
	This month, the press has reported on people's treatment and rights to, for example, legal aid, legal representation, translators, and on periods for which people can be held. Let us be honest: I am a pro-European, but I accept that different standards exist in countries throughout the EU, and I must stress that Greece is not always the worst offender. Delay occurs in other countries. It is proper to raise such matters in relation to extradition.
	When we reconsider the law, we need to be satisfied that there are minimum European standards. If we are willing to sign up to conventions under which a properly constituted court in, for example, Italy, Portugal, Sweden or Denmark goes through the process to extradite a UK citizen, all EU countries need to be satisfied that no one will be detained for long without being brought to court, and that people have proper access to, for example, legal representation.
	Those are the issues, but I have one last question for the Minister. I would be grateful if he would tell us now for the record, if that is possible, or later if it is not, whether the convention options that we have chosen, which appear in a complicated table, are in every case those chosen by the other countries. Derogation is possible under the convention—we can derogate from this or sign up to that—and various choices can be made, so it would be helpful to know how the EU countries are implementing the convention and which options they have chosen. I am happy for that information not to be conveyed across the Floor of the House; indeed, it may be safer and more accurate to provide it in other ways.
	Twelve minutes—I am not doing too badly, and I am just about to sit down. This is important business and we on these Benches support it. We shall not divide the House and we are willing to co-operate, but we reserve the right to renew our questioning and challenging on the more substantive issues when they are debated in the new year. That is not the most festive note to end on, but I hope that, in difficult waters and on delicate matters, we have managed to do a good job and that we all believe that the processes that we are adopting are fair, just and respectful of people's rights, wherever they come from in the EU.
	I further hope that, as far as extradition can ever be coupled with a festive greeting, those who exercise these powers do so fairly, if not festively, on all occasions. After completing our business, we should all wish each other a relatively festive time, even if it is not festive business in itself.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I do not want unnecessarily to disturb the tranquillity of the House on the eve of the Christmas recess and I certainly approach the matter from the perspective of a non-specialist—indeed, a non-lawyer. That makes two of us, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) claims to be a non-lawyer, and I believe him.
	My interest has been aroused in recent weeks partly by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Government, certainly initially, were far too dismissive of the opinion of those whom I respect, so a degree of vigilance is required when the criminal justice system and the liberties of our constituents are being discussed.
	I am afraid that the Department's record on complying with the scrutiny needs of the House is poor and the matter of the European arrest warrant is little short of a disgrace. In the first debate on it, the Minister did not have the right documents; in the second, in a European Standing Committee, he was, to put it charitably, a little under-briefed. We have since received a clarifying letter on one matter, which was not accurately described.
	For all those reasons, we are wise to pause, even though I understand that there have been discussions between the usual channels about how the matter should be dealt with. The normal position should be that criminal justice matters are considered during debates on primary legislation. I thought that we had established that during debates on the 2001 Act and that, following pressure from the Opposition and in another place, use of secondary legislation would be restricted to matters more directly related to the events of 11 September. Of course, the regulations considerably predate them and, as usual, deal with matters that go considerably beyond any imminent terrorist risk.
	As the heart of the regulations appears to be the voluntary principle that the accused must assent to extradition, they are unlikely to apply to many suspects whom we hope will be apprehended following the air attacks in New York. I am therefore a little surprised that the matter is proceeding in this way, particularly as an extradition Bill is to come before the House next month. I understand that we have made at least a moral commitment to pass those matters into law by the end of the year, but, having waited so long and given that the appropriate vehicle is on the horizon, I should have preferred the matter to be argued out during consideration of primary legislation.
	If we are concerned about the imminence of further terrorist activity, we ought to act more urgently on the complete mess that is the extradition system. I am still worried about the Soering case, which I understand represents a total block on our ability to extradite to a number of countries outside the European Union. I remind the House of the facts: a German national admitted to committing a murder in the United States, but could not be extradited from this country as the Strasbourg Court ruled that the state of Virginia would subject that individual to degrading or cruel treatment as the death penalty was on its statute book.
	During debates on the 2001 Act, the Home Secretary was forced to introduce a wholly illiberal measure of indefinite detention without trial to bolt on to this terrible system a way out, so that we can at least detain some of the more dangerous suspects. The problem lies there rather than with passing in short order conventions dealing with extradition from one member state to another.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned that UK law and the European convention on the death penalty will be undermined if extradition is allowed to American states that practise the death penalty? Indeed, the death penalty would be reintroduced by subterfuge.

David Heathcoat-Amory: No, I do not accept that interpretation. The Strasbourg Court is attempting to externalise our policies on the death penalty. That is a moral imperialism of which I disapprove. It is up to the United States to decide how it deals with criminals convicted under its legal system. I happen not to be in favour of the death penalty—that is my position for this country—but it is not right to use the European convention on human rights to impose a system outside the EU. That is a clumsy way to proceed, and it has led to the Home Secretary resorting to detention or internment as a way to deal with the problem. The suspects would be in this country, although they should be tried in other countries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying wide of what is a technical motion.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seduced along that path by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who raised a valid point.
	We are going for the wrong target and doing so rapidly when more urgent matters should be attended to. I have a number of specific questions about the regulations to put to the Minister. Will he say more about the apparent fact that individuals could be extradited for offences that are not crimes here? He may respond that the crimes in question must be connected with the suppression of terrorism,
	"drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime or other acts of violence against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a person".
	That is a quotation from the convention. The definition is fairly wide, however. I can imagine crimes in other member states coming under that general heading, and the possibility of extradition for offences that we do not recognise here.
	Here is another question for the Minister. Could a person be extradited from this country for a crime committed here? Usually, we understand extradition to mean returning an individual to the state where that individual is alleged to have committed an offence—returning the individual to the jurisdiction of the state concerned. It seems to me, however, that in some cases the crime could have been committed here and the individual could be extradited for it. That certainly obtained according to the terms of the European arrest warrant, as first drafted, and it led to considerable questioning and concern in another place. I realise that we are not discussing the European arrest warrant now, but I would like the Minister to comment.
	My third question is this: could someone be extradited for an offence for which they had already been tried in absentia in the requesting state? That too was raised in connection with the European arrest warrant, but again I would like the Minister to comment.
	I understand that, by definition, the individual concerned must consent to the extradition, but may I ask the Minister a final question? Having given up the entitlement to specialty, could that person be put on trial on the receiving state for virtually any other crime? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) understands that those other crimes would have to be subsidiary to the offence for which the person had been extradited, but that is a rather imprecise phrase, and I would like the Minister to say a little more.
	I can imagine circumstances in which someone who had been extradited was put on trial for an almost entirely unrelated offence that, nevertheless, came under the general heading of drug trafficking, alleged terrorism or whatever. Will the Minister tell us whether there are any practical or even theoretical limits to the number of other crimes with which such people could be charged?

Keith Bradley: As a non-lawyer, I listened with great interest to the speeches of lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Although few Members spoke, quality made up for the lack of quantity. I shall answer as many questions as I can, and write to those whose questions I cannot answer: I shall ensure that they are given full details as soon as possible.
	The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised a number of points. I confirm that consent for a person who has voluntarily agreed to extradition will be given in writing. As for the question of the competent judicial authority, the United Kingdom will make a reservation to the effect that consent under article 7 can be given to any of the competent authorities in accordance with article 15, and is not limited to a judicial authority. The competent authorities are therefore those listed by the hon. Gentleman. The question of legal aid was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) as well as the Opposition. Fugitives will be allowed legal aid in the normal way, and the normal rules of legal aid will apply.
	Article 10 of the 1996 convention, which was mentioned in connection with fines, protects a person who has been extradited from being dealt with in regard to an offence committed prior to his surrender. Obviously, however, an offence committed after his surrender will be a matter for the requesting state.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North asked about ministerial discretion. There will be no change to those arrangements. We are not talking here about the Terrorism Act 2000; we are talking about the Extradition Act 1989, and amendments to that Act. The 1989 Act will apply in the normal way. When we produce a new extradition Bill, my hon. Friend may have further thoughts.

Humfrey Malins: Could the Minister at some stage drop me a note, if he cannot reply now, about a little concern I have about penalties in lieu of fines? In this country we say, "Pay a fine or go to prison." That may be the case in other countries. It would be helpful to know whether the phrase I used, "sleight of hand", could be brought into operation somehow.

Keith Bradley: I will reflect further, and give the hon. Gentleman further advice in writing.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful for what the Minister said about the right of discretion. Will he confirm that, under both the existing legislation and the regulations, the Home Secretary—through the Attorney-General—has the right to decide whether a case can proceed against someone in regard to an extradition request? Could the Home Office block the request in the initial stages?

Keith Bradley: I can confirm that the arrangements under the 1989 Act will continue to apply until we make any changes in a Bill to be presented early in the new year.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked which options the United Kingdom had taken, and how the UK compared with other countries in that respect. The answer can be found in schedules 4 and 8 of the regulations, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman if he wants some more information.
	I was slightly surprised when the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) protested about the fact that the regulations were not incorporated in primary legislation. It was his party—indeed, I think he was a member of the Government then—that signed up to the conventions. I do not know what representations he made then about primary legislation, but we, as the official Opposition, would have been happy to debate such legislation.
	I feel that we are making progress—the provisions in the new Act allow us to do so—but the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to learn that the new Bill will provide an opportunity for a full debate on extradition. I am sure that he will participate with his usual assiduity.

Dominic Grieve: I do not want to make a meal of this, but the Minister seemed to suggest that the last Conservative Government might have intended to introduce these measures by means of statutory instrument rather than primary legislation. As I am sure he knows, until the passing of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill last week it would have been impossible to do that.

Keith Bradley: Either the hon. Gentleman misunderstood, or I did not make myself clear. I was trying to say that the last Government had an opportunity to produce primary legislation, but for whatever reason—obviously, I was not privy to discussions on business management at the time—chose not to do so. We now have the opportunity to do so through secondary legislation and the new provision in the 2001 Act. We have taken that opportunity, because of the link with terrorism. It is right to do so, but I stress that there will be a debate on the primary legislation when a new Bill is introduced in the new year.

Simon Hughes: We all signed up to this provision coming in by this route, given the time constraints to which we were subject. However, that does not mean that the Government should not have introduced it in the period since they came to office in 1997. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The Conservative Government had a maximum of only two years left in office, whereas Labour has had four years in which to introduce primary legislation. I am not being over-critical, but it is always better to introduce such measures in primary legislation, and never better to do so in this way.

Keith Bradley: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He always manages to find a way of criticising while protesting that he is not doing so. I shall not pursue the point. We are old adversaries on these matters.
	The right hon. Member for Wells referred to the reform of the extradition process and the Soering judgment. The Government will be reforming extradition, and we shall introduce primary legislation in due course. These regulations are being debated today because of our commitment to ratify them by 1 January. I think that I have explained our position.
	The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of crimes committed in the United Kingdom. The position of extraterritorial jurisdiction is not affected by the regulations. The Extradition Act 1989 remains the same, subject to the alterations to the sentencing threshold in section 2.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there is a limit to what a person can be tried for once extradited. If a person consents to extradition and waives specialty protection, he could be tried for any offence once returned. However, if the person contests extradition, he will benefit from specialty protection, subject to the provisions of these conventions, which will allow other minor charges to be brought.
	I hope that, in the time available, I have covered most of the questions that have been put by right hon. and hon. Members. If I have not picked up all the points or have not been able to answer them, I shall ensure that hon. Members receive the information that they have requested. That will be important in guiding us into the further debates on these matters in the new year.
	From the comments that hon. Members have made, it is clear that I should enjoy my Christmas because 2002 may be a challenging time on these matters. I wish everyone a merry Christmas, and I hope that they return in 2002 with a spirit of good will as we continue to debate what are important matters, as hon. Members have recognised. I hope that we approve these regulations today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft European Union Extradition Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 19th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 8th January.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Tom Cox: I want to talk about Cyprus. I am the chairperson of the Commonwealth parliamentary all-party Cyprus group. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of whom are present in the Chamber, belong to that all-party group.
	The United Kingdom has a long association with Cyprus. We are one of the guarantor powers for the Republic of Cyprus, which is a member of the Commonwealth. Since the invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the island has been divided. More than 30 per cent. of northern Cyprus is occupied by the Turkish army, which led that invasion. Since 1974, there have been many debates and many questions in the House on the policy of the Government of the day towards working for an honourable settlement of the tragedy in Cyprus. We have always been told that the Government support an honourable settlement, and work on the basis of the resolutions on Cyprus that have been passed by the United Nations. Those statements are to be welcomed, but sadly they have achieved nothing over those many years. The division and occupation of Cyprus remain. Over that period, there have been many opportunities to work for a settlement, but regrettably none of them have succeeded.
	I had a debate in the House some years ago on the future of Famagusta. It is now a deserted town, but prior to the invasion it was one of the most popular towns in the whole of the Cyprus. We were led to believe by Mr. Denktash, who speaks for the Turkish Cypriots of northern Cyprus, that Famagusta would be returned. Greek and Turkish Cypriots could have lived together, worked together and started to build a future that would have insured their rights and security. Sadly, as so often happens, Mr. Denktash refused to honour the commitment that he made.
	Years and years have passed, and the occupation of a sizeable percentage of a Commonwealth country continues. We have had countless meetings and discussions with senior diplomats. Politicians have been to Cyprus and have met the President of the Republic and Mr. Denktash. Sadly, nothing has happened, despite many attempts to achieve a breakthrough.
	Two major developments have now taken place in Cyprus that offer hope for a future for both communities on that island. First, there is a clear indication that the Republic of Cyprus will become a member of the European Union, possibly in 2004. Secondly, Mr. Denktash is now aware that he and his closest ally, Turkey, have achieved nothing since 1974. All the evidence shows that the economy in northern Cyprus is in a terrible condition, and that vast numbers of true Turkish Cypriots want a settlement and the whole of Cyprus to become a member of the European Union. I warmly welcome that.
	The great strength of the all-party Cyprus group is that we have always clearly said that the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots are as important to us as the rights and security of Greek Cypriots. That has always been the cornerstone of the speeches that many hon. Members have made over many years.
	Turning to the present, I believe that there is now an excellent opportunity for a progressive future to be developed on the island of Cyprus. I welcome the discussions that are now taking place between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash. Those talks will not be easy, but that will be a test of what both men are able to achieve. I am in no doubt as to the commitment of President Clerides to work with all his might and power for an honourable settlement.
	If one considers, for example, the application of the Republic of Cyprus to become a member of the European Union, Mr. Denktash has had countless opportunities presented to him by President Clerides to join him in a joint Denktash-Clerides presentation for the whole of the island of Cyprus to be involved in the discussions of its application. However, as we know, Mr. Denktash has only one reply to those invitations: "Recognise northern Cyprus as an independent state or I am not interested in taking part in any discussions." The United Nations does not recognise an independent state of northern Cyprus, the EU most certainly does not, and neither does the Council of Europe. The only country that recognises that so-called state, in being only because of the Turkish army, is Turkey.
	We have recently heard statements by the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that if the Republic of Cyprus is allowed membership of the European Union, Turkey will consider annexing the whole of northern Cyprus. I tabled a written question on the issue earlier this year and I received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, which said:
	"The suggestion that Turkey might 'annex' north Cyprus, in the event of Cyprus joining the EU before a settlement, is not new. While it is difficult to predict what Turkey might do if a divided island were to join the EU, we believe that the 'annexation' of northern Cyprus would severely compromise Turkey's relations with the EU, and contravene her obligations under the Treaty of Guarantee. However, our aim continues to be a settlement before Cyprus joins the EU, though we stand by the Helsinki Council Conclusions that it is not a precondition for enlargement."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 401W.]
	I hope that that statement is made clearly and often to Turkey. It should be told, "Annex northern Cyprus and you have no European future."
	President Clerides made a speech at the United Nations in New York on 11 November, in which he said:
	"I urge the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, to join me in sharing the vision of a Cyprus too small to be divided but huge for the common prosperity of all its inhabitants. I urge him to look to the future and not to the past, listen to the increasingly desperate voices of our Turkish Cypriot compatriots and stop placing obstacles, at each turn, to the good offices of the Secretary-General for a solution to the Cyprus problem. It is noteworthy that the economic prospects for a post-settlement Cyprus are truly impressive. And this growth will be even greater for our Turkish Cypriot compatriots, who are currently suffering due to the dire political and economic situation in the occupied areas."
	What clearer commitment could there be on the part of the President of the Republic of Cyprus that he wishes to work with Mr. Denktash for the benefit of all the people who live on the island of Cyprus? The next round of discussion that takes place between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash will be in mid-January, and I hope that the talks will succeed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the fact that those talks will be based on the resolutions that have been passed by the United Nations, because they will be the cornerstone to any settlement of the long-running tragedy of Cyprus.
	I want those talks to succeed, but we expect Cyprus to become a member of the EU in 2004. I hope that Mr. Denktash will not attempt to say, "We are now in talks. Let us put off membership of the EU until the talks between Mr. Clerides and me have been concluded." Any attempt to make such an argument should be totally opposed, and I reiterate the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe that a settlement is not a precondition for entry to the EU by the Republic of Cyprus. The coming months will be vital to Cyprus. The opportunity is there for a settlement and I and many others want to see Cypriots, be they Greek or Turkish, living and working together and building a stable and prosperous future for their country that they and their families can all enjoy.

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to point out that if all hon. Members took eight minutes for their contributions, everyone would have a chance to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: How long Members speak for is entirely a matter for them, not for the Chair.

David Atkinson: Although the House has debated the events that followed 11 September, and in Afghanistan, on many occasions, including this afternoon, it should not rise before considering how to eliminate the causes of international terrorism, and how to deal with those responsible for it. The events of 11 September have put terrorism under greater scrutiny than ever before. Of course, it remains a regular experience on the streets of Israel and other countries including our own. Its most recent and greatest victim, the United States, is rightly determined to bring the perpetrators to justice. It also regards this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to eliminate all such threats and sources of international terrorism for as long as it takes. But that will not be enough.
	We also need to address those causes that inspire such a capacity for hatred to commit such acts, including suicide attacks. Those who were immediately responsible for planning and carrying out the hijacking over the United States came from mixed backgrounds. Some came from privileged and prosperous families, as has bin Laden himself who, according to Peter Bergen's book, "Holy War Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama Bin Laden", is primarily motivated by American policies in the middle east, above all its presence in Saudi Arabia. Many of bin Laden's supporters are merely interested in provoking a clash between the west and Islam, or are seeking an end to what they see as Israel's hegemony, supported by the United States, in the middle east.
	Al-Qaeda recruits come from many countries, some of them impoverished, nearly all of them undemocratic. In response to the first problem, impoverishment—if one has nothing, one has nothing to lose—we must, of course, respond positively to Kofi Annan's appeal, repeated on receiving the Nobel peace prize a few weeks ago, for the UN to eliminate world poverty. We are regularly informed by the Chancellor of Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development about the poverty reduction strategy, which was recently discussed at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meeting in Ottawa, which the United Kingdom supports and which aims to halve world poverty by the year 2015.
	One of the reasons most frequently cited as justifying terrorism—although, of course, there can be no justification—is the denial of human and minority rights, which we rightly seek to address in insisting on good governance in our aid and development programmes. But there is more that can be done to promote human rights and democratic institutions, as President Clinton urged in his brilliant Dimbleby lecture at the weekend, to reduce the causes of terrorism.
	A number of colleagues from the Assembly of the Council of Europe are present this evening. The House will know that the Council of Europe was established after the last war as the forum within which our continent's disputes could be resolved by peaceful means, instead of causing countries to go to war every generation. For more than 50 years, it has accumulated a wealth of experience among its 43 member states in democratic practices, the protection of rights and recognition of cultural diversity.
	The Council's Political Affairs Committee is ably led by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who wishes to be associated with my remarks. Next year, that Committee will come forward with a report on best practice on autonomies and confederations short of outright independence. We hope that this will contribute to resolving the remaining disputes in Europe such as Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia, Transdneistre, Chechnya, and perhaps even Kosovo and Cyprus.
	This work could also be usefully applied elsewhere, such as Sri Lanka and Kashmir and other areas that are the sources of terrorism. In addition, we are promoting our democratic standards, which are the highest in the world, to our Arab neighbours in north Africa and to the five central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union through co-operation agreements, and by offering them observer status to our Assembly.
	We are considering how we can assist the new African Union, which recently replaced the Organisation for African Unity as the pan-continental institution. It proposes to establish its own court of justice, monitoring procedures and an inter-parliamentary assembly. In 1998, we endorsed well researched and realistic proposals as to how the principal breeding grounds for terrorism in the middle east—the 49 Palestinian refugee camps—could be closed down after 53 years, in favour of permanent settlements. Those camps were the subject of my Adjournment debate on 29 April 1998, and I believe that they are just as relevant today.
	I mention these initiatives for the record, because not all of them have been referred to in the House with regard to what is being done by Europe's pre-eminent institution, the Council of Europe, not least to combat the roots of international terrorism. Of course, to be fully effective, the initiatives require the acknowledgement and support of our Committee of Ministers—effectively, our Governments. They also require the resources that will be necessary. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is listening, because the Council of Europe continues to experience zero real growth in its funding.
	In conclusion, I want to refer to one particular aspect of the recommendations that the Council of Europe endorsed two weeks after 11 September. The recommendations concerned the threat to democracy posed by international terrorism, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was the rapporteur.
	We regard the new International Criminal Court as the appropriate institution to consider terrorist acts. We have called on member states and the Committee of Ministers to give urgent consideration to amending and widening the Rome statute to allow the remit of the court to include acts of international terrorism.
	Of course, we hope that the United States, following the events of 11 September, will now support, and not oppose, the establishment of the court. Unfortunately, next year, whereas the whole world will hear the evidence against Slobodan Milosevic at the UN war crimes tribunal at The Hague, the United States proposes to try the 11 September terrorists behind closed doors in a military court, in which not even the defendants will hear all the evidence against them before being sentenced to death.
	I believe that the entire world will expect justice to be done—and to be seen to be done—towards those who were responsible for the events of 11 September. Just as it was right to try the Nazi leaders for their war crimes at an international court at Nuremberg, so should any future Osama bin Laden be tried for crimes against humanity in an international court, as we propose.
	I am encouraged that the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers is studying this proposal, which I hope our Government will now actively pursue.

John Cryer: These pre-recess debates normally involve hon. Members raising constituency issues. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) once said that the day of the pre-Christmas Adjournment debates should be rechristened "Whingeing Gits Day". The fact that I happened to glance at the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) when I said that is purely coincidental.
	I want to raise a number of constituency cases. The first involves the home energy efficiency scheme. My constituent Mrs. Goodchild is entitled to a hot water and heating boiler under the scheme. The catch is that she has been entitled to it for seven months but it has still not been fitted.
	The boiler should have been fitted by Eaga Partnerships, a Government agency. I am worried that Eaga is completely unresponsive to the needs of my constituents. It is probably unresponsive to the needs of constituents of many other hon. Members. Eaga has refused to return Mrs. Goodchild's calls. It even refused to return the calls that I made in the first day or two after I took up the case. That is extraordinary.
	I have been trying to get a pledge from Eaga that my constituent will have the boiler that she needs fitted by Christmas, but even that is not guaranteed. That is simply not good enough. The Government must monitor agencies and partnerships such as Eaga, and ensure that they do the work that they are commissioned to do. If they are not doing that work, some reorganisation might be required—or even the curtailment of contracts.
	The second issue that I want to raise is the mis-selling of electricity and gas supplies by energy companies. To illustrate the problem, I shall read an extract from a letter that I sent to Energy Watch on 20 March this year. The letter dealt with Powergen and one other company. I wrote that my constituent
	"has never received anything in writing as far as he is concerned. He has never entered into any contract, verbal or otherwise, agreeing to transfer his supplies to Powergen. He was previously with British Gas and Eastern Electricity. Despite this, Powergen have taken over his supplies, and to cap it all it appears that Powergen now wish to take over his telephone supply as well."
	My constituent had never signed anything or agreed to anything. He merely had a brief telephone call with Powergen and later discovered that his supplies had been switched. That seems to be happening on a widespread basis. Other hon. Members have told me that they have encountered similar cases.
	I secured an apology from Powergen, which has since entered into a voluntary agreement across the industry. The agreement supposedly guarantees that people who are the victims of the practice will be switched back to their original suppliers. However, I do not think that this incident is a one-off, as Powergen tried to claim. Although the evidence is only sporadic, I think that this is happening on a widespread basis.
	I am not a nationalist about the utilities any more than I am a nationalist about anything else, but Eastern Electricity, which supplies power to people in my constituency and the surrounding areas, was bought out some time ago by the Texas Corporation. Decisions are made thousands of miles away in that massive company's corporate boardroom. It is therefore hardly surprising that the corporation is not responsive to people in Hornchurch, Rainham or elsewhere.
	When the utilities were publicly owned, we at least could put pressure on them. Ministers were responsible for the functioning of the utilities, and we could hold them to account. If it were up to me, I would take the utilities back into public ownership in a moment. Sadly, I am not the Chancellor—not yet, anyway.
	Finally, many hon. Members have been concerned about the campaign being run by Mencap, and many of us will have received postcards from that organisation. The campaign deals with sexual offences against vulnerable adults with learning difficulties. I have corresponded extensively with the Havering branch of Mencap, and with the large number of constituents who have sent the postcards to me and to other hon. Members.
	The law dealing with sexual offences against people with learning difficulties is way out of date. The Sexual Offences Act 1956 covers only those who are unable to give consent. In other words, it deals only with people who have very severe learning difficulties, not with those who have moderate or mild learning difficulties. It carries a maximum sentence of only two years, which is roughly the same as people get for burglary and robbery. That tariff should be raised considerably. The offence should carry a life sentence, like rape.
	Mencap argues that the offence under the 1956 Act should be replaced with the offence of
	"having sexual relations with a person with a severe learning disability who is unable to consent to that sexual activity".
	That clearly applies to people with severe learning difficulties.
	There should also be a test of capacity, and a definition of that capacity, of a person's ability to consent. That would cover people with moderate learning disabilities. The Law Commission recommended the following as a definition of lack of capacity, saying that the victim
	"is unable by reason of mental disability to make a decision for himself or herself on the matter in question; or he or she is unable to communicate his or her decision on that matter because he or she is unconscious or for any other reason."
	That would create a modern, concise and rational basis on which the law could be moved forward.
	I know that the Government are consulting on these issues. They produced a document called "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences" in July last year. As far as I know, the consultation is still continuing. However, may I make a plea that it should be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible so that we can introduce legislation? At present, many people with learning difficulties are in an extremely vulnerable position and do not have the full protection of the law.

Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate being able to address the House before we adjourn for Christmas, because my constituents feel most strongly about a number of issues.
	I live in a part of the country that will increasingly have to face private affluence amid public squalor. Since the Government have been in power, they have consistently made spending announcements and then demand—indeed, dictate—unrealistic outcomes from ever constrained resources. One example is the police. The recent settlement for the police meant that although formally they had an increase of 2.3 per cent., it was a 2.6 per cent. fall in real terms. The costs of police pay are going up by 3 per cent. and pensions by 18 per cent. To achieve that, they are given a 2.3 per cent. increase.
	The costs in areas such as mine are high, and the police do not benefit from London weighting, so the Metropolitan police force acts as competition. In Surrey, the benefits of London weighting are not reflected in police pay packets, but the costs are still enormous. Constituencies such as mine, which contain rural areas as well as market towns, face additional burdens. For that reason, I co-chair the town and country finance issues group, an association of about 80 constituency Members of Parliament who try to advance their case.
	The House will be surprised and shocked to learn that one of the steps that the Surrey police force has taken to attract and retain constables is to provide health care for them. Do any other police forces take the view that the NHS is in such an appalling state that the only way to retain and attract police officers is to provide private health cover?
	I have repeatedly addressed the House about what has happened since the Government came to power to create far greater inequalities in health services than ever they inherited. At present, in my area, one person in nine waits for more than a year for in-patient treatment. In the Prime Minister's constituency, that figure is less than one in 100. Year on year, the Government have squeezed the funding in the south-east, quite inappropriately in the light of the appalling cost of living and the difficulty of attracting and retaining public service workers. The Government's response to public service workers is to name and shame.
	Today has seen the publication of the National Audit Office report on hospital waiting lists. I know, perhaps as well as anybody in the House, that NHS managers are dedicated public servants who believe in the ethos and values of the NHS. People rarely thank them. I took note of the references that the Prime Minister made to NHS managers in the 18 months before 1997, and in the year following his election. He only ever referred to them as bureaucrats, and in an insulting manner, until, as a result of a number of parliamentary questions, I am pleased to say that he modified his language.
	The question that arises from today's report is why so many NHS managers feel so alienated from the leadership of the NHS and driven to such lengths that they will compromise the values that I know they hold. It is because of the political overload and the political imperatives forced on the health service, as in many other public services. Too little value is put on the people who work in the service, and there is too much spin, too many trivial initiatives and constant soundbites.
	I would like the Government to take one practical step and admit that they were wrong, and that there should be an independent chief executive of the NHS. They should restore the role of the permanent secretary, who is accountable to Ministers, takes forward the Whitehall battles, sorts out visiting incoming Health Ministers and special advisers who abuse the conventions, and takes responsibility for honours. The permanent secretary could deal with all manner of Whitehall and Westminster matters and allow the chief executive to have the independence and credibility with NHS staff to take forward devolution of the service, instead of centralisation.
	It would be hard to exaggerate the despair felt in the health service in my part of the world. The waiting times are appalling; the accident and emergency departments are groaning. Week by week, I receive letters to which the only reply I feel I can give is, "Can you go privately?" When I learned that Surrey police force had taken the decision to provide private health cover for its staff, that made me think that it knew what was happening. It cannot attract and retain staff otherwise; it does not have the confidence in the NHS that I would want it to have.
	Before finishing, I shall provide two pieces of positive information. First and foremost, I am delighted that work on Farnham's community hospital has begun. Farnham, Milford and Haslemere were all under threat. A vigorous local campaign has seen them safeguarded. I pay particular tribute to Sir Ray Tindle, the proprietor of the Farnham Herald and other local newspapers for a constructive, energetic and determined contribution to the campaign. Again, the squeeze on social service and health funding in Surrey, along with the cost of living, has meant that nursing and residential homes have been closing, under huge pressure.
	The Government must listen to Cheshire Homes, the biggest providers of independent care in the country, the Meath residential homes—another charitable foundation—and Methodist Homes for the Aged. They organise institutions and care for the frail and vulnerable and cannot cope with the insoluble formula with which they are presented. There are ever greater demands and requirements with regard to the standard of care, the criteria and the outcomes, with ever reduced means available. Nevertheless, I shall go round all those community hospitals within the next couple of days and speak with delight about their future, and about the real dedication and commitment of the staff.
	I also appreciate the real commitment on the A3 at Hindhead. That is the only single carriageway on the A3 between London and Portsmouth, and contains the first traffic lights that a Scottish Minister would meet on the road between Scotland and Portsmouth, one of our busiest ports. That commitment will unlock the economic development of the south-east, the Portsmouth area and the Isle of Wight, and above all, it will safeguard an especially valuable and important piece of countryside.
	In my area, there is real concern that unless the Government think again about our needs and are fairer to a part of the country where a massive amount of tax is raised for the Chancellor, there will be greater disillusion, and the all-party commitment to our welfare state and our welfare services will be jeopardised. The local government settlement, while promising an increase of 2.3 per cent. to all, in fact came through as a real cut for my area. I am pleased that, after the outcry that resulted, the Secretary of State announced that he would maintain his commitment to a 2.3 per cent. increase, but I regret that the increase in local government spending next year will be 7.4 per cent.—not 2.3 per cent. The recycling requirements, the homelessness requirements and the many other burdens on, and expectations from, local government mean that once again, the ends are being demanded but the means are not being delivered.
	The situation in south-west Surrey is extremely serious and I ask the Government, please, to listen to our concerns and ensure that—every so often—a Minister visits our area. I spent nine years of my life visiting Leeds, Sheffield, Darlington, Birmingham, Manchester, Halifax and Plymouth. Before I became a Minister I did not know the United Kingdom, but in nine years I spent lots of time visiting every part of the country—whether or not it was represented by a Member of Parliament of my persuasion.
	The fact that the Government are highly partisan concerns me deeply. They do not take their responsibilities to the entire country as seriously as they should. When the outcomes—especially in health care—are as appalling as they are in Surrey, the Secretary of State should visit. It is now four and a half years since the Government came to power, but during that time, no senior Minister has visited south-west Surrey.

Shona McIsaac: As we approach the festive season, with twinkling lights on the Christmas tree, Christmas cards and present wrapping, I shall raise the seasonal issue of fireworks—specifically, their irresponsible and prolonged misuse.
	At the end of October and the beginning of November, my local paper was inundated with hundreds of letters of complaint about the misuse of fireworks—as was I. As a result of those complaints, the Grimsby Telegraph launched a campaign for tougher laws on the sale of fireworks. The response was astonishing: more than 1,100 people backed the campaign, while only one person supported the status quo.
	I have given the campaign my full backing because people endure months of misery caused by fireworks. I do not know what happens in the constituencies of other hon. Members, but it seems that in north-east Lincolnshire the firework season starts at the beginning of August. That is when the noise begins. As soon as the back-to-school posters go up in Woolworths and other stores, the fireworks are set off.
	That shows that the voluntary code of practice on the restriction of sales to three weeks before and one week after 5 November is not working. There is an increasing use of fireworks. Christmas is coming up, so we shall see lots of fireworks. We have them at birthdays, weddings, parties and the celebrations of many of our ethnic communities, such as Diwali and other festivals. Many more fireworks are being used, thus causing more disturbance to many people.
	Although the voluntary code restricts the sale of fireworks to the period around 5 November, few people realise that fireworks can also go on sale at this time of year—from the beginning of December and into January. People in my constituency and elsewhere are dreading another outbreak of explosive mayhem at Christmas and the new year.
	Many elderly people have been writing to me and to the local paper to complain about fireworks. A war veteran told me that the war was quieter than the months of October and November in Lincolnshire. I am not of a sensitive nature, but, boy, the noise is atrocious. I have received complaints from people who run care homes and residential homes for the elderly, and from mums with young children and babies. Every time there is an explosion the babies start crying again, so the mothers get more and more fractious as the children get more upset.
	The noise affects people who are seriously ill or recovering from illness; it affects shift workers and people with pets. Some of the people who got in touch with me have guide dogs. We forget that guide dogs are particularly sensitive to noise, so fireworks can actually disrupt the way in which they work. That is a danger for people who are blind.
	The problem is not only one of noise. Increased criminal damage is associated with the misuse of fireworks. Every year there are reports of phone boxes being damaged by fireworks. People play tricks by putting fireworks into car exhausts and letter boxes. Fireworks are thrown at pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. They are thrown at people's windows and doors. There is also cruelty to animals, including tying fireworks to family pets that happen to get in the way of the louts who misuse fireworks—as happens in my constituency. There is a culture of fear and we must tackle it.
	I love organised displays and I certainly want them to continue, but it is time to toughen up the voluntary code. A few years ago, I was burgled in early November, and noise was a factor. The dogs next door normally bark when someone they do not know walks down the street, but because of the noise of the fireworks they were barking anyway. The police told me that there is an increase in burglary at that time of year because deterrents such as barking dogs are not as effective as usual. Incidentally, the cats climbed up my new drapes and shredded them, but that is not as important as the fact that people are burgled at a time of year when criminals can use noise to disguise their activities.
	The firework safety regulations of 1997 state that sales should be restricted to people "apparently" over 18, but there is no requirement to show proof of age. Certain categories of firework can be sold to people as young as 16. Average 16-year-olds have many restrictions on their lives. They are not allowed to vote, to buy drinks in pubs—although we all know that plenty of them do—or to drive cars, and in England, they cannot get married without parental consent. Yet we allow them access to explosives. That is unacceptable.
	Yes, there are penalties for selling fireworks to people under 18. There are also penalties for discharging and throwing fireworks in the street, but how many prosecutions are there for such offences every year? They are few and far between. The code is not working. We must toughen it up because loutish elements misuse fireworks, causing much disturbance and a culture of fear—especially among the groups that I mentioned.
	Early in the new year, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is to bring in a ten-minute Bill on the subject, so I am flagging up the matter now to give the Government ample time, before the Bill is introduced, to tighten up the regulations so that, I hope, 5 November in 2002 and subsequent years will not be as noisy as before, and people can enjoy a bit of peace and quiet.

Peter Viggers: I would not be content for the House to rise for the Christmas recess without my taking the opportunity to raise again, very briefly, the future of the well known Royal Hospital Haslar. It is a local hospital in my constituency, but it is much more: it is the only military hospital in the United Kingdom. It is well known because I have raised this issue many times.
	When defence medical services were in some difficulty, in 1998, a study group set up by the present Government reached the amazing conclusion that the way ahead for defence medical services was to close the only military hospital. The result, of course, has been catastrophic. The decision has turned the situation into a crisis and in four key faculties—anaesthetics, surgery, orthopaedic surgery and general medicine—defence medical services are now some 75 per cent. short of establishment. That is a grievous situation, both for defence medical services, because I believe that the armed forces are now restricted in their ability to deploy because of lack of defence medical services, and for the local community, which has lost its accident and emergency unit.
	However, it is not all bad news, because we have had a vigorous campaign, widely supported in the area and by those in the armed forces. The good news is that we now have an accident treatment centre, which does not exactly replace the accident and emergency unit but is a helpful local facility. Moreover, reality has broken in: the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust and the health authority both now recognise that Haslar is a crucial and necessary part of the local health scene, and the latest strategic document produced by the national health service, jointly with the Ministry of Defence, called "A Strategic Vision", says that Haslar should continue until at least 2007, and that it should continue to provide a range of services to the armed forces and the civilian population.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) expressed surprise that the police force in Surrey was now using private medical facilities. She and others might be surprised to hear that the armed forces, which have their own military hospital at Haslar, are now required to use civilian medical facilities as well, and a number of individuals have been treated by BUPA and other private medical systems. The problem is that although the immediate operation can be arranged through a private medical facility, if there are any complications, or if aftercare is required, the service man or woman must return to the service hospital at Haslar. In several cases, operations have been carried out in the private sector and the subsequent problems and complications have been handled in the public sector, back in the military hospital.
	However, the situation is moving on. We are satisfied with "A Strategic Vision", and if only the words "until at least 2007" could be deleted and the word "indefinitely" substituted we would, I believe, be there.
	First, a study group, composed of members of the Royal College of Physicians and others, is leaning towards the view that there needs to be more use of local hospitals. It believes that there is more scope for district diagnostic centres. There is a growing feeling in the medical profession that it is wrong to send all accident and emergency patients first to a district general hospital, from which it is quite often difficult to discharge them, and that it would be a better idea to admit patients first to a local hospital, after which, following proper stabilisation and diagnosis, they might be transferred to the district general hospital if necessary. If that study, which is due to be published before the end of the year, does indeed reveal that local district diagnostic centres should be used more extensively, attention will be drawn to the fact that precisely such facilities can be offered at Haslar, and throughout the rest of the country.
	Secondly, there is growing awareness in the royal colleges that it is possible to have joint-centre working—that it is a good idea for trainee doctors at all levels to work partly within a district general hospital and partly within the local hospital community, linked with telemedicine, and that that provides a good range of experience for trainee doctors. Such joint-centre working would allow the Royal Hospital Haslar to work in conjunction with the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham.
	Thirdly, I have written to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Health and urged them to get their act together and have genuinely joined-up government. It is no good for the Ministry of Defence to announce the closure of Haslar without the Department of Health's taking a firm view on the future configuration of hospital services in the area. We now want a plan, jointly worked out by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health. We want that joint plan to give a future to the whole of the Haslar land area and the Haslar hospital within it, and to additional facilities that could be located in the Haslar complex.
	That is the right way ahead. I firmly believe that we are winning. We are working to a plan that, in due course, will prove to be a better way ahead than the Centre for Defence Medicine, which has been located in Birmingham, and is causing some disappointment among those who work there. I believe that we are working our way forward and that the future will be good for Haslar and for the local community. 7.46 pm

Graham Allen: I want to speak about the Government's treatment of strokes, but first I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, to the Front Bench and take the opportunity to place on the record my thanks to him and his team for what they have done in connection with the modernisation of the House. It is one of the most important things that the Government have done in the past year or so—although I would ask my hon. Friend, despite the self-discipline of hon. Members tonight, to consider a mandatory speech limit, to enable Members to plan with some certainty. Unfortunately, the other evening seven Labour Members fell off the end of the Speaker's list in the European debate. It is perfectly within our compass in the House to impose such a limit, to help hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	The Government's treatment of strokes is obviously an extremely important issue, and I have several questions that I hope that my hon. Friend will put to the Secretary of State for Health on my behalf as a result of the debate. Every year, 100,000 people suffer their first stroke. It is the third biggest killer in the United Kingdom and the single largest cause of severe disability.
	Stroke is a devastating condition, and most hon. Members will know a family member or friend who has experienced it. The effects of a stroke can vary enormously, and depend on which part of the brain is damaged and the extent of the damage. It is the commonest cause of neurological disability, the commonest cause of epilepsy in older people, the second most common cause of dementia and, not surprisingly, the commonest cause of depression. Those affected by strokes, whether patients, their families or their carers, know what it is like to experience the life-changing effects that strokes bring.
	Expenditure on strokes is already considerable. The costs in national health service and social services expenditure in 1995–96 were calculated to be £2.3 billion. The incidence of strokes is projected to rise considerably as a result of demographic change. It therefore makes sense to ensure that resources are used in the most effective way to ensure the best possible outcomes for families and their carers. There could be huge savings to the health service, social care budgets and the national economy.
	My first question to my hon. Friend would be: will he ensure that the Department of Health conducts a thorough review of the way in which funding for strokes is allocated and accounted for? Let us not allow this great wagon of public spending to roll on without conducting a proper review and adjusting to circumstances as they change.
	The Government are to be congratulated on recognising the need for improvement in the care offered to stroke patients. Standards for stroke care were included in the national service framework for older people, which covers England and was published in March this year. It is commendable that by April 2004, all people who are thought to have had a stroke, regardless of their age, can expect to be treated appropriately by a specialist stroke service.
	Of the 100,000 people who suffer new strokes each year, 10,000 will be under the age of 55. Although in the past, many older patients have been denied specialist treatment because of their age, the same has been true of younger stroke patients. Their needs have often gone unmet because many have been unable to access stroke services, which are often designed for older patients. Much has still to be achieved to ensure that all those who have strokes receive the rehabilitation essential to give them the best chance of independent living by the Government's target date of April 2004. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Secretary of State for Health to let me know what progress has been made to date to meet the milestones laid out in the national service framework for older people?
	The Stroke Association has recently undertaken a survey of NHS trusts to establish the current position. It also asked about plans to set up stroke units in general hospitals that treat stroke patients, but which currently have no such provision. Of those acute trusts in England reporting no stroke unit in one or more of their general hospitals, just over half have plans in place to develop a unit by 2004. Even hospitals with a stroke unit do not always have the capacity to treat all their stroke patients. Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to let me know what assessment his Department has made of the current provision of stroke units?
	The national service framework sets out service models for managing stroke patients in hospital. The specialist stroke team, led by a clinician with expertise in strokes, brings together nurses, therapists, clinical psychologists and other staff able to respond to individual needs. Members of those multi-disciplinary teams will have experience and knowledge of caring for stroke patients. It is vital for patients to have access to knowledgeable staff who can provide expert care and advice.
	Clinical psychology is another area of unmet need, and the numbers of trained staff are insufficient to ensure that all those who need this service receive it. Recovery from stroke can continue for many years, which is recognised in the national service framework. It is therefore essential that those who have had a stroke have continuing access to rehabilitation services in the community. Will my hon. Friend therefore ask the Secretary of State to indicate what action is planned to train adequate numbers of therapy staff in each of the required specialties?
	The national service framework for older people commits the Government to take action to prevent strokes. Action to reduce the risk of a person having a stroke in the first instance is urgently needed. It is a startling reality that the health gap that exists in our society results in some minority ethnic and social groups experiencing a much higher risk of stroke. I could give the details, but I shall simply ask my hon. Friend to let me know how the Government will tackle the differentials between social classes and ethnic backgrounds.
	Blood pressure is another factor, as is smoking, yet although those factors are taken into account with heart disease and cancer, with strokes they are often not taken into account. Will my hon. Friend therefore discover whether the Secretary of State has a national campaign to make people aware that they are at risk if they smoke or have high blood pressure?
	My final concern is that stroke research is very much underfunded; it lags way behind the amount spent on cancer and heart disease research. The Stroke Association funds what research it can, and committed about £2 million in the past financial year, but that sum is only 5 per cent. of what is available from the largest heart disease charity, and less than 2 per cent. of what is available from the two largest cancer charities. Recent research has confirmed the need for research into areas such as physical therapy for those affected by stroke. My final question is: will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to list the stroke research currently undertaken by the Department of Health, and to re-examine the priority given to stroke research in recognition of the projected rising trend in the incidence of stroke?
	My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I do not expect him to answer all those questions this evening, but his general comments—and an undertaking that the Secretary of State for Health will drop me a line—will be well received not only by myself, but by the millions of our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom whose lives are often unnecessarily blighted by strokes.

John Horam: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I well remember that wonderful actress, Thora Hird, making a marvellous speech to the Stroke Association in the Members' Dining Room some years ago. Indeed, the House will be sad to learn that my predecessor, Ivor Stanbrook, whom some hon. Members will recall, has suffered a stroke that has left him speechless and paralysed down one side.
	As the hon. Gentleman also said, hon. Members have exercised remarkable self-discipline this evening, which is unusual given that this is normally a season for a lack of restraint, but that self-discipline reflects well on all hon. Members. I shall continue that discipline and confine myself, despite many temptations, to one subject: policing in the outer London suburbs. Of course, the issue applies more generally, but I want to focus on Bromley, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) will want to be associated with my remarks.
	The fact is that the residents of Bromley feel that they are suffering not a double whammy, but a triple whammy, because crime and antisocial behaviour are increasing and police resources are being cut, yet they are paying more in council tax and general taxation. Like many other boroughs, Bromley has a community safety partnership, which recently went through the audit procedure for the previous three years, culminating in July 2001. The audit is, therefore, up to date and shows that crime and disorder and the fear of crime are soaring, even in a leafy outer-London suburb such as Bromley.
	Overall crime has increased by 9 per cent. on the previous three years. Vehicle crime has increased by 34 per cent., despite a target to cut it by 5 per cent. Robbery has risen by 35 per cent., despite another 5 per cent. target cut. The Parliamentary Secretary is looking for positive points this evening, so I gladly make one. Only residential burglary has decreased—by 5 per cent., but even in Bromley, the detection rate is only two thirds of the average. Some 52 per cent. of people felt under a medium threat of crime, and 10 per cent. felt highly threatened. Worst of all in many respects, the detection rate has fallen from 20 to 13 per cent. during those three years. So 87 per cent. of crimes go undetected, and a dire proportion of criminals are punished.
	Moreover, although I am anxious not to be excessively negative, I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that things have got worse since 11 September. For reasons that people understand, lots of police have been taken from areas such as Bromley to the centre of London. I entirely understand those reasons, but the result is that street crime in Bromley increased by 131 per cent. in October, and the residents are extremely concerned about the situation.
	I have a high regard, as do most hon. Members, for the efforts of the local police. The chief superintendent in charge, Chief Superintendent Howlett, has been promoted and is undertaking a six-month strategic command course, and he obviously hopes to be promoted to assistant chief constable in another area. We are losing a good man, who has done a good job in Bromley, especially in putting more of the policemen at his command on the beat. The fact is that he cannot go on for ever getting a quart out of a pint pot, and I am concerned about the resources that he receives to do his job.
	There are two aspects to the problem: first, the money given by the Government to London as a whole, which is the Government's responsibility; and, secondly, the allocations within London. In the previous Parliament, I was a critic of the previous Home Secretary, whom I never felt got a satisfactory deal out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for policing, crime and law and order. As the House can confirm, the resources to fight crime decreased in real terms during the previous Parliament.
	The current Home Secretary—I am trying to make another positive point—is, however, doing rather better than his predecessor in getting resources for the police, but even so the Parliamentary Secretary will be interested to know that the £22 million that the Home Secretary has recently said is being allocated for the extra costs of policing in London, following the events of 11 September and all that flows from them, is really a spit in the bucket. It has been consumed in the costs of extra policing that have already been incurred, so there is no extra element for what must be faced until the end of the financial year. In effect, we have had no increment.
	Although I fully accept that this is not the responsibility of the Government, another problem is the allocation of the money within London. However, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers aware of what is happening in London as a result of the powers that are now in the hands of the Metropolitan police authority, which is responsible for the allocation of resources within the metropolitan area. The authority is chaired by Lord Harris of Haringey and, for the whole of this financial year, it has been reviewing the formula that settles what each individual borough receives. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will be interested to learn that the chair of the review board is Lord Tope, a distinguished Liberal Democrat. I imagine that he has been the force behind the board's decisions.
	In 1997, there were 464 police officers in Bromley, but the target figure or aspiration under Labour has been reduced to 458. The present figure is 437, but Lord Tope's review board has reduced it to 425, the lowest figure ever. The board has reduced the figure to 425 because that is how many police officers there were in the six months before the slight surge in recruitment—I make another positive point—that the Government have been able to announce in the last few days.
	By comparison, Haringey—which is the biggest gainer—has gained 110 policemen. There is no rhyme or reason why Bromley should lose police officers while Haringey gains 110. Bromley has 63.5 crimes per police officer while Haringey has 63.2 crimes per officer. There is hardly any difference between the resources per crime in each of the two boroughs, but one borough will lose 12 officers from its already inadequate number while another borough will gain 110.
	This package was voted through the Metropolitan police authority by the combined votes of the Liberal Democrats and Labour. It was, of course, opposed by the Conservatives led by Councillor Bob Neill, the Member for Bexley and Bromley in the Greater London Assembly and my representative. He is also leader of the Conservatives on the GLA and he is doing an excellent job in opposing such nonsense.
	Needless to say, the precept set by the Metropolitan police authority for all Londoners will rise. It has risen twice in the past two years and it will, no doubt, rise again next year. We will face higher bills for fewer police and more crime and antisocial behaviour.
	The Government must accept responsibility for the net effect on my constituency. The changes that they have made—the reorganisation of the police structure in London—have led, first, to a more complicated system with a Metropolitan police authority and a commissioner deciding how to allocate resources. Secondly, the system costs a lot more and, thirdly, we have fewer police and less police support to deal with crime. The incidence of crime and antisocial behaviour is therefore rising. That is wholly unsatisfactory. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey my strong feelings to the Home Office.

Ross Cranston: I want to hang my brief remarks on three pegs. The first is marked work in progress; the second lost opportunities; and the third institutional failure.
	On work in progress, I wish to refer to the example of the public services and improving their delivery. It is part of a mantra that the price of additional money for public services is reform in service delivery. That is perfectly justifiable. The lesson from, at least, the 1960s is that just throwing money at social problems will not necessarily go any way to resolving them. Therefore, the Government are engaged in a set of necessary restructurings.
	I want to spend a couple of minutes considering the restructuring of the police service, a matter that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) has just raised. Effective policing—in particular, the effective policing of antisocial behaviour—is also high on my constituents' wish list. I have presented several petitions to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the matter, and the first from Councillor Wilson in the Coseley area contained 3,000 signatures. Another 3,000 signatures appeared on other petitions collected by councillors in Gornal and Sedgley.
	The first point to make about effective policing is the truism that it depends on community support. Indeed, we as a society bear much of the blame for the wider problem of antisocial behaviour. There is a thin line between the promotion of laddish culture in the media, including the BBC, and yobbish behaviour. There is also the unscrupulous marketing of alcohol to young people by the drinks industry and the laxness in the sale of fireworks that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) mentioned.
	Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force, local support for policing has been institutionalised in local partnerships. Dudley council has been able to obtain nine antisocial behaviour orders, and that is a considerable achievement. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg and that number could be squared.
	The second point about effective policing is that we need more human resources. In other words, we need more police. The Government should be congratulated because police numbers are now at a six-year high, but there is a great deal more to be done. In the West Midlands force, the number has gone up but the increase is relatively low compared with that in other forces. Moreover, I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the problem of the high attrition rate in the West Midlands force. Along with other hon. Members, I have pushed the barrow of more special constables. Indeed, I see no objection to others, such as neighbourhood and street wardens, contributing to the policing effort.
	That leads me to a third point, which relates to my first theme on the reform of public services. Police forces cannot be exempted from the need to modernise. Those who take a contrary view have their heads in the sand. I cannot see my constituents continuing to tolerate a situation in which average sick leave for each officer in the West Midlands force is 13 days compared with eight days in other forces, such as Humberside and Northumbria. I cannot see my constituents continuing to tolerate a situation in which the average police officer spends only 17 per cent. of his or her time out on patrol. I cannot see my constituents continuing to tolerate a situation in which financial rewards are based on a series of archaic, historically won concessions rather than flowing to those shouldering the most difficult and demanding policing tasks.
	I support the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at police reform. The police need and deserve our support and I have great admiration for my local chief superintendent, Dennis Hodson, and his officers. However, I hope that the Police Federation will embrace the changes set out in the White Paper and so do service to those that it represents and to my constituents.
	My second theme is lost opportunities. This Parliament had the opportunity to adopt an offence of inciting religious hatred, but that opportunity was lost because the Government were defeated in another place by an unholy alliance of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. I shall return to their respective roles shortly, but let me first rehearse the arguments for the creation of such an offence.
	An offence of inciting religious hatred is overdue and the need has become particularly acute since 11 September when those of us with substantial minority ethnic communities in our constituencies have seen the British National party become more active and an increase in religious harassment, especially against Muslims. The legal problem arises because of the special application of the law of blasphemy to Christianity. It was accentuated by a decision of the House of Lords in 1983—the Mandla case—which held that Sikhs, and by analogy Jews, are protected as a racial group. They therefore fall under legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1976, but Muslims are not covered because they do not have a clear geographic origin or common descent. The upshot is that Muslims do not have the same level of protection as others in our community.
	An offence of inciting religious hatred, parallel to the existing offence of inciting racial hatred, would have created a more level playing field in the legal sense. As we recognise religious freedom in the common law, and in light of the European convention on human rights, the corollary is that we have to take steps to protect those who exercise that freedom.
	The Conservative opposition to the offence was based on the ground of free speech. It was the Conservatives' view that the offence would be too broad and its application uncertain. As such, they believed that it would catch robust criticism and satire, or even the declaration of one's own faith. I do not accept those arguments given that experience has demonstrated that the parallel offence of inciting racial hatred as set out in the Public Order Act 1986 is relatively rarely invoked. The threshold for prosecution is quite high. The offence is to produce threatening, abusive or insulting material with the intention of stirring up hatred, or such hatred being likely, not just reasonably foreseeable.
	Moreover, there is a narrow construction, which the courts always adopt with criminal offences, and the additional hurdle of the Attorney-General's consent. Theoretically, restrictions on free speech are justified in the light of serious secondary effects. In the case of religious hate speech, those are fear, insecurity, psychological distress and, in some cases, physical danger and injury.
	Be that as it may, the Conservatives took a principled stance against the offence, but not so the Liberal Democrats. They said that they were in favour of some sort of religious hatred offence, but not in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and not yet. They know the realities of parliamentary time. They know that the Home Office, with all its Bills, has no chance of getting time for a Bill that covers all religious matters in the foreseeable future. Typically, instead of settling for second best, the upshot is that we have no offence of inciting religious hatred. Over the next couple of years, I shall remind my faith communities that they have the Liberal Democrats to thank for that lost opportunity.
	On institutional failings, I shall focus on the House. The difficulty with parliamentary standards is that rational public discussion is almost impossible given the perception fostered in some parts of the media that we all somehow have our snouts in public and private troughs. In some ways, we do not help ourselves. Trivial complaints are still being raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and I am looking directly at the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for supposed party political advantage. If only hon. Members realised how corrosive that is to the standing of Parliament.
	As Peter Riddell, that wise and immensely knowledgeable commentator on our affairs wrote—

Angela Browning: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Ross Cranston: The hon. Lady will be able to respond later, but I shall give way.

Angela Browning: I am really not clear about the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to me.

Ross Cranston: The hon. Lady has raised several matters with the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Angela Browning: I have not made public anything that I have raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner. My understanding is that anything that one raises with her is confidential until she has examined it and made her views public.

Ross Cranston: I do not know about that. My comments relate to Labour Members too. There is a corrosive effect on the standing of Parliament if hon. Members raise trivial matters.
	Peter Riddell wrote in The Times this morning:
	"The dirty secret of British politics is that there is no dirty secret . . . The repeated rows over 'sleaze' are generally about failures to disclose defensible interests or donations."
	There is no case for complacency; nor is there an argument for the status quo. I believe that we have the right machinery, but we need to reorientate it. Failure to declare or register an interest that is both negligent and trivial does not require the Parliamentary Commissioner to inquire. There is a need for judgment and proportionate action.
	In my view, more attention needs to be given to behaviour. Declaration and registration of interests are only one aspect of that. Indeed, an MP's interests are irrelevant unless they influence or appear to influence behaviour. We need to revisit the code of behaviour and explore whether that should be fleshed out to give greater guidance to individual MPs. We also need to ensure that ethical behaviour is part of our culture.
	The final aspect of institutional failure relates to our role in raising matters of public concern and in scrutinising the Executive. I welcome the changes that are proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office and the Leader of the House. I know that the Modernisation Committee will return to Select Committees in the new year. The Joint Committee on Human Rights played a valuable role, especially in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
	On scrutiny, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House have proposed that all Bills be published and scrutinised in draft form. I support that. However, at some stage, we will have to tackle the Standing Committee system. The Committees may enable outside interests to canvass arguments, but they do not provide adequate scrutiny.
	I am mindful of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen); I am especially mindful of his height. In light of that, I shall resume my seat.

Peter Luff: I want to raise the important matter of the future of Droitwich Spa, one of the two major towns in my constituency. That town could have a happy Christmas and a prosperous 2002 if a number of things were to happen. They are at various stages of development—some worrying, some encouraging.
	We need to ensure that the two historic canals that run through the town are reopened and that the town centre is revitalised in the light of the major town centre development by Waitrose. We also need to ensure the refurbishment of the historic lido and the reaffirmation of the town's brine heritage, through district council actions and, in particular, the English Heritage ancient monument status for Droitwich Spa, which is being discussed. Other matters are also relevant to the town centre, but those four impinge on national policy making.
	Droitwich Spa has a proud heritage of salt production, dating back to Roman times. In the 19th century, it saw a massive expansion, with new hotels, a railway station and, of course, the famous brine spa baths themselves. Sadly, in more recent times, the town has drifted and the centre is looking especially fragile. I have worked with one of the leading councillors in the area, Councillor Pam Davey, to bring the traders together, with some success, but more needs to be done if the town is to re-establish its vibrancy, as I believe it can.
	There has been a steady gain in population as a result of planning policies. Droitwich Spa has taken people from Birmingham and elsewhere in the west midlands, but sadly many of them are commuting to jobs elsewhere. A vision is needed to revitalise the town. That vision is on offer from Wychavon district council and the town council, and it has generated a possible £20 million of investment. That investment is at risk, however, if we do not get the support of Government agencies—especially some of those that report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—of the local community and of the private sector. My worry is that some local pressure groups are working with commercial vested interests to undermine local democracy in Droitwich Spa and the interests of the wider community.
	Let me deal with the issues briefly and one by one. The reopening of the canals is the good news part of the story. I declare an unremunerated interest as vice-president of the Droitwich Spa canals trust. The local partners are working well together to achieve that important ambition. The project is identified by the Waterways Trust as one of the most viable canal reopenings in the country. The Droitwich Spa canals trust, British Waterways and the local authorities are working together effectively with other local partners.
	There are encouraging signs. The heritage lottery fund and Advantage West Midlands may play their part in bringing about the necessary funding to secure the reopening of the canals. That will bring great benefits, not just to Droitwich Spa but to Worcestershire as a whole and, I believe, to Worcester city. I make one new year prediction: in 2002, we will see agreement on exactly how those canals should be reopened.
	There are, however, contentious matters that affect the town, in particular the Waitrose town centre development. That does not sound like something to raise in the House of Commons, but I believe that it should be. The district council retail study by Chase and Partners identified the need for a major boost to the town centre. The Waitrose development provides precisely that opportunity. Plans have been submitted. The very fine planning officer, Jack Hegarty, of Wychavon district council is considering those plans now.
	The decision by the planning committee is due early in the new year. However, special interest groups in the town, apparently encouraged by Tesco, are mounting a vociferous and often unpleasant campaign against the proposal. The most dramatic step was to conduct a parish poll this August; that was forced on the town council, even though the planning matter was outside its competence. The poll proposed a specific site for a superstore in Kidderminster road in which Tesco has a commercial interest, having a charge on the land which is actually in administration.
	That interest went undeclared in the parish poll. The people of Droitwich Spa were misled; they thought that they were participating in a poll on the merits of an issue, but in fact they were participating in a poll to further the commercial interests of a specific supermarket chain. Interests should be declared in parish polls, just as we in the House of Commons have to declare our interests in the Register of Members' Interests, which was published yesterday. The parish poll cost £4,685.25, which might not sound very much in the great scheme of things, but it is a lot of money to a town council like that of Droitwich Spa. It achieved a wonderful turnout of 11 per cent.
	An expensive poll attracting an 11 per cent. turnout was pursued simply to further the commercial interests of one supermarket chain. No wonder that the leader of the district council wrote to Tesco suggesting that it write a cheque for the sum in question; he is right to do so. The poll raises three important policy concerns which, I know, are shared by Members for other constituencies. The Local Government Act 1972 needs to be amended, first, to require a declaration of interests in parish polls and, secondly, to increase the threshold of voters to trigger a poll; in Droitwich Spa just 10 voters are needed to trigger a poll of 23,000 electors which, clearly, is much too low. There is talk of another poll and another poll beyond that, which could bankrupt the town council. Thirdly, there is a need to limit questions to matters within the competence of the parish or town council administering the poll.
	Tesco is getting over-mighty and is conspiring by accident or design to undermine democratically elected town and district councillors; it is going too far. Another site at Baxendale chemical works is available: it would be a good idea to develop that for retail use, possibly food retail use. Tesco should look at that—for all that I know, it may be—not at the Kidderminster road site, which is earmarked for housing, through a proper, democratic process and the local plan.
	I shall be brief on the question of the lido. A huge public subsidy is needed to maintain a 1930s building which reflects the brine heritage of Droitwich Spa. Again, a group of protesters, for understandable emotional reasons, opposes the involvement of the private sector in a massive redevelopment of the facility which will bring a genuine tourism advantage to the whole town. The protesters' latest technique is to require spot-listing of the lido. That is a device to frustrate the development and may well scare off private sector investors. I plead with them to drop their spot-listing proposal and I urge the Government to resist any such application that comes before them.
	Finally—this is what prompted me to speak in our debate—I turn to English Heritage's suggestion that the town centre should be listed as an ancient monument in its entirety, branded by English Heritage as "Droitwich Salt". That came as a bit of surprise to many of us, who did not know that it was making such a proposal. Apparently, it has been talking about it for some years; some people knew that, some did not. It could be a good idea as it might put Droitwich Spa back on the map, but English Heritage is not pursuing it as pragmatically as I would have hoped. It proposes to define the town centre with a bizarre line which seems to lack any historical or archaeological credibility and could threaten the Waitrose development, to which I have already referred.
	I understand that English Heritage met the district council yesterday; there were constructive and encouraging signs that it engaged in a proper dialogue with the council. However, I plead with English Heritage and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to whom this matter will come in due course, to be very flexible indeed. There are huge gains for Droitwich Spa if the listing is tackled sympathetically, but huge damage could be done to the town's viability if inflexibility is practised instead. Heritage must be a living matter, a notion that I believe the chairman of English Heritage fully endorses. I hope that that will be reflected in any recommendation from English Heritage in due course.
	The four issues that I have raised are part of a complex matrix of issues that could revitalise Droitwich Spa. They could transform the town and put it back on the map. If we lose too many of those opportunities, the decline of the town is inevitable. The protesters should quietly withdraw their objections in the interests of the wider community; local government should stick to its guns and pursue its vision; and the Government and their agencies should support that vision—they have it in their power to do so.

Vernon Coaker: In the short time available, I wish to draw the attention of the House to three issues; two have national implications and one relates to my own constituency.
	I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) about fireworks. In the past few weeks, we will all have been contacted by numerous constituents about the problems that they have experienced with fireworks. Indeed, in common with my hon. Friend's local newspaper, our local newspaper—the Nottingham Evening Post—launched a campaign calling on the Government to review legislation on fireworks. Many of us in the House have had much correspondence and pressure from our constituents, and it is incumbent on the Government to examine how well the current legislation and regulations are working, reviewing them to ensure that in future some of the misery that many of our constituents have experienced is avoided as far as possible.
	The issue is extremely serious. At some point, the Government will have to examine it to see what can be done. I appreciate that we can have as many regulations and reviews as we want, but at the end of the day we need regulations that can be enforced on the streets in an effective and practical way. Certainly, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which people feel terrorised for months on end—indeed, almost all year round. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take up the issue.
	Secondly, Nottingham City Transport has recently reviewed its bus services, and new services were introduced on 30 September. For many of my constituents, the review was a disaster because the buses have disappeared: services have been withdrawn or cut. The bus is often forgotten. We talk about grandiose schemes—huge motorways and railways and billions of pounds spent here and there—but in many of our communities, the bus and its effectiveness, which involves the question of whether it runs or not, are crucial.
	Nottingham City Transport has reorganised its bus services to cut some of its losses: effectively, it is concentrating on what it calls profitable routes. I accept its argument that the service on those routes is fantastic, with new and frequent buses. However, for people on extreme edges of estates and in rural areas, it is difficult to reach those super-duper buses. Nottingham City Transport's changes mean that many of my constituents who are socially excluded have become even more socially excluded.
	Many of these people have families, many are elderly and many find it difficult to make their voice heard. I suspect that the company will say that because the level of complaints has reduced, because the number of letters to the local newspaper has declined, because the number of letters sent to me about the matter has gone down and because the number of complaints that the company receives has declined, that means that the service has settled in, that the changes are working and that the initial furore was part of the process of change.
	As I have said, many people find it difficult to make their voice heard and to make an impact on the system. As a result, they give up. They think that they have lost. They think that despite all their efforts, nothing further can be done. Far from being satisfied with changes, there is a sense of resignation.
	It is important for Members to have a say in their Parliament on behalf of people who feel hard done by by a bus company that has put increase in profit and the dividend to shareholders above the needs of those who live in the communities that it used to serve. I take this opportunity to call on Nottingham City Transport to review the changes that have been made and to consider whether it is possible to reinstate some of the services that have been taken from some of my constituents. The company should undertake such a review because the outcome will be important to many of my constituents who live in the suburbs of Nottingham.
	Thirdly, there is the enormous problem of antisocial behaviour. I believe that police resources are rising and that the numbers of police on our streets are increasing. However, there is a need for more officers, and I think that that is generally accepted. Those who talk to me are not necessarily afraid of some of the huge crimes that we tend to think about when talking about the police. They come to me because they are fed up with people throwing stones at their windows, with their cars being scratched, with people running down the street screaming late at night and with milk being stolen. There is intimidation on the street. There is loutish behaviour all the time.
	I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to examine how effectively some of the legislation on antisocial behaviour that we have introduced is working and to examine how we can ensure that antisocial behaviour orders work. We must ensure that the legislation that bears on antisocial tenants is enforced. We must ascertain whether the parenting orders that we have introduced can be broadened so that they can be used before someone offends. At present, they can be used only when someone has offended, or when a parent is taken to court because a child is not attending school.
	Far from there being only law and order problems or policing problems, there are social issues that bear on parental responsibilities for some young people. As a society, we should encourage the taking up of those responsibilities.
	Many of the antisocial problems that we talk about involve young people. However, we should recognise them as people who demand services just as others do. Some of the facilities that are available to young people in many areas are not good enough, and we should do something about that. Young people should have a voice in the provision of services, and we should provide more services. Many of them simply want a place to go sometimes where they can feel safe and hang around with their friends.

Jonathan Sayeed: I always find this pot-pourri of a debate interesting. There is such a variety of topics. My little rose petal of a contribution to this pot-pourri will relate solely to the disposal of refrigerators. The Government have got themselves into a considerable bind, and that involves the taxpayer. It was known that the problem would arise for about four to five months.
	The reason for this situation became apparent only last Tuesday when the Minister for the Environment, in a reply to me during a debate on waste, admitted that we are in this bind because the Government did not understand the implications of an EU directive to which they had signed up. They did not realise that in disposing of refrigerators they had to deal with the chlorofluorocarbons in the gas and with the problems of the insulation material within refrigerators. There is no plant in the United Kingdom that can deal with that insulation.
	In accordance with the Montreal protocol, the new EU directive on ozone-depleting substances requires the removal of all chlorofluorocarbons from refrigerators, and the directive will take effect in 12 days' time.
	The Local Government Association has estimated that if there is one fridge per household and 21 million households in England, on the assumption that each fridge will be replaced every 10 years, 2.1 million fridges will be scrapped this year alone. The retailers think that the figure is higher—3 million fridges a year. Those figures ignore commercial and industrial refrigerators and air conditioning units.
	It is expected that apart from those fly-tipped on verges and lay-bys, most fridges that cannot be collected by retailers will pass through the hands of local authorities. The Government have explained that they want local authorities to dispose of those 2.1 million fridges in purpose-built plants, but there are no such plants in Britain. I am told that no sites have been approved or given planning permission, so how will the Government assist local authorities in disposing of that mass of waste? I believe that the regulations that will affect the plants are still in draft form. Clearly, no company will invest in such plants until they know what the final regulations are, so there is no possibility of moving forward to investment decisions or planning permission.
	The Government have belatedly understood the implications of the EU directive to which they signed up. They have said that the insulating foam inside fridges must not be allowed to escape into the environment, and old fridges must be dealt with in one of three ways. First, the entire fridge may be disposed of in an incinerator, but that is expensive and it means that the metal element is unlikely to be recycled.
	Secondly, it has been suggested that the fridges could be disposed of abroad, but that will not work. Because refrigerators contain CFCs, they are classified as hazardous waste, so the insurance premium and the shipping premium go up. It is therefore not economical to export them. The only practical way of exporting them is to get rid of the chlorofluorocarbons by de-gassing the fridges, but if they are to be exported to third-world countries, where they are very useful, there are no facilities there to re-gas them.
	The third option is the Government's preferred one. They want to dispose of fridges in purpose-built reclamation facilities in the UK. It is undoubtedly the best option available, yet the Government have made no provision for this means of disposal. Although the Government say that we need three plants in the entire UK, manufacturers have told me that 10 plants will be needed, each with a throughput of 300,000 fridges a year.
	In the meantime, because we have no plants the Government have given local authorities some £6 million to store fridges. However, that does not mean that the recycling problem will be dealt with. The fridges will just be taken to a dump and stored there. If people are elderly, poor or have no car, how can they get the fridge to a dump? The answer is that they have to pay someone to take the fridge, and that could cost £50.
	The Government have produced a system that does not work. It also means that the fridges cannot be refurbished. Currently, one third of old fridges are refurbished and go to the poor or to third-world countries, so they are still valuable. That will not happen if they go to dumps. They cannot be re-used once they have been out in the open for a long time. We will simply have fridge mountains around the country, because we have no way of dealing with them.
	The Government must explain what happens when the £6 million promised to local authorities runs out. Will it or subsequent sums be allocated to the environmental protective and cultural services block on which the local authorities depend? Will the £6 million and any further moneys be in addition to that money?
	Clarification is also required about a statement made by the Minister for the Environment, who said:
	"There is no need for householders to worry about disposing of their old fridge. If a retailer cannot be found who will take an old fridge away, local authorities will accept the fridge at the civil amenity site, free of charge."
	Who will get it there?
	I realise that I have only a minute left, so I shall be extremely brief. The fact is that the Government have got it wrong, and we are going to see throughout the country what are colloquially known as fridge mountains. In the next two months, about 800,000 fridges will be sold, so the same number will be dumped in one way or another. In the next year, in which there will be no recycling or disposal plant, some 3 million units will be dumped or stored. The Government say that they believe in the producer paying; frankly, they have produced the mess and I wish that they would pay to sort it out.

Jeremy Corbyn: Last Sunday, I went to the Edith Cavell statue, just outside the church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and just north of Trafalgar square. I joined a couple of hundred other people. For an hour, we took turns to read out the names of people—there were 1,100 in total—who have died in the past year in the conflict in Israel and Palestine. The poignant and moving thing about the names was the differences in the surnames and first names, and the huge range of ages of the people who died. In some ways, it was like reading from war memorials for the first world war, on which one sees the names of brother after brother who died on the western front. Many people joined in the rota. There were people from Palestine and Israel and from the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, as well as people of no religion at all. They were united in calling for peace and hoping that, somehow, as we move into a time that is important for all religions—we have just come to the end of Ramadan, Hanukkah is around and Christmas is next week—we will see some genuine hope of peace coming to the middle east in the next year.
	I must say, however, that the portents are not good. The demonstration was organised by Just Peace UK, which also has supporters and members in Israel, and members of Gush Shalom also attended. The petition that we passed around—I shall not read it all, but I want to refer to what it said—called on the British Government to call a halt to the Israeli Government's over-excessive violence and assassinations and the brutal siege of the Palestinian people that is breeding the horrific counter-horror of suicide bombings, which are universally condemned. It went on to describe the situation in the region.
	Anyone who has visited Israel and Palestine will be aware that, as the Prime Minister has said, travelling from Israel into Gaza is like going from the first world to the third world. One sees the poverty, misery, distress and downright anger of ordinary Palestinian people about the way in which they have to live and in which they are treated. When an atrocity occurs in Israel, the Israeli authorities often make very little attempt to do anything about it judicially. There seems to be a policy of launching an immediate rocket attack on a supposed source of Hamas terrorists or on somebody else. The result is that villages, homes and lives are destroyed, and many people die. That breeds anger and hatred, and more support for the people who then carry out attacks in Israel.
	When the Prime Minister of Israel or the President of the United States says that it is up to Chairman Arafat to capture such people, bring them to justice and have control over them, they forget that the Palestinian National Authority is not especially wealthy. Indeed, one could argue that it is often bankrupt. If Israeli armed forces systematically bomb its police posts and any form of transport that Chairman Arafat has, it is hard to understand how he or anyone else can exercise authority over what is happening in Palestine and Israel.
	The wider question is how one brings about a peaceful solution. It is not wanting for lack of resolutions at the United Nations or of international recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people to exist in a twin-state strategy alongside Israel. There is no lack of political declarations around the world. However, they are not implemented and matters are not brought to a fruitful conclusion.
	The British Government are an important part of the process, and I hope that they will do all that they can to put pressure on the United States to cease the apparently unending stream of military support for Israel and its blanket support for anything that Israel does. I hope that they will apply a great deal of pressure to ensure that the negotiations take place round the negotiating table, that a ceasefire occurs, and that, if both sides agree and wish it, some sort of United Nations policing operation is established. In 2002, I hope that we can look forward to the declaration of an independent Palestinian state, which will form the basis for long-term peace.
	What is happening in the middle east is horrific and the implications are wide. No one of whom I know supports what al-Qaeda and bin Laden did on 11 September; no rational person could condone that organisation's activities. However, people are desperate for peace, recognition and self-determination. If the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority cannot provide that, people seek recognition and justification elsewhere. That is how organisations such as Hamas get their support.
	I hope that after the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, there will be peace, some self-determination and genuine support for the clean-up operation in the wake of the use of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, daisy-cutters and all the other horrific accoutrements of modern warfare. I hope that there will be an examination of human rights abuses by the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, especially the killing of so many prisoners at Mazar-e-Sharif in the early part of the allied campaign against the Taliban.
	I want a recognition that the fundamental injustice of the treatment of the Palestinian people and the need for an active peace process lie at the heart of much of the world's problems, especially in the context of the war on terrorism. There is a need to end the blanket support and approval of Israel's action and to promote an active peace process.
	The continuation of the United States campaign against terrorism without legal justification, declarations of war, support for an international criminal court and judicial process will lead to a break-down of any international agreement or treaty. A bombing campaign in Somalia will probably succeed as nothing else in uniting many Somali people against the United States and the west. I hope that there will be a halt, a pause and a recognition of the need for the primacy of international law.
	I am about to finish because I am getting strange signals from the Whips. I have received such signals for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. On 30 January, the United Nations mandate for the MINURSO force expires. It currently helps to ensure that there is a ceasefire in the western Sahara. There was a war, but now there is a ceasefire and a thirst for peace and for self-determination. The United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council have ratified the principle of a referendum to facilitate that peace process, but if there is no referendum for the people of Sahrawi, so wrongly expelled after the Moroccan invasion in 1974, there will be no peace, the Moroccan occupation will continue and a guerrilla war and all the wider implications of that will be on the agenda.
	The Government are seized of that fact, but I hope that they encourage the French Government to stop allowing the Elf Aquitane oil company to sign oil exploration certificates in the occupied territories in Morocco, which is totally illegal, totally wrong and very dangerous, and ensure that there is sufficient financial and practical support for the UN operation to enable the referendum to take place early next year. Those hundreds of thousands of people living in dusty, dry, inhospitable refugee camps in Algeria will be able to return home to the country from which they were so brutally expelled in the 1970s.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I must briefly raise several points. First, I entirely agree with the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on fireworks. I cannot recall receiving so many letters about fireworks and on firework night I thought that our house was under siege, as bombs seemed to be exploding everywhere.
	Fireworks no longer produce pretty little stars and the noises that they make seem to have grown louder and louder—local residents were complaining about animals being frightened. I much prefer organised displays. We should not ban fireworks, but a ten-minute Bill on the subject is to be introduced next year and I ask the Government to consider how such products are manufactured and whether we can definitively control the period for which they can be displayed. I hope that a successful gunpowder plot does not result next year owing to the crazy decision we took last night.
	My second point is about the wonderful Southend airport. Unfortunately, it has encountered a number of difficulties, so much so that an article about the airport appeared recently in The Daily Telegraph. To comply with new Civil Aviation Authority regulations, St. Laurence church, which is nearly 1,000 years old, must be shifted 150 yd. That is being seriously considered, but quite how an ancient church can be picked up and moved I do not know. Obviously, worshippers are extremely upset and those whose loved ones are buried by the church are outraged. Although I hope that the Minister recognises that the airport is worth supporting, will he pass that message to his colleagues so that this crazy scheme for an ancient church might be avoided?
	My third point concerns cocklers in Leigh-on-Sea, who are in difficulty. Every year, there are problems in the Thames estuary with an algae called DSP. The cocklers advise me that a huge number of cockles would have to be eaten before a person became ill, but there seems to be no clarity and the cocklers of Leigh would be grateful if tests were carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) had responsibility for such matters when she was a Minister.
	My fourth point involves the huge difficulty in attracting and retaining teachers. Going round the schools recently, I encountered a number of mature teachers and one wrote to me recently:
	"I needed the full student loan every year for four years totalling £6000. On completing the course I found that teachers salaries did not take into account my ten years previous experience in outside industry. The salary I received was not enough . . . I had to take out graduate loans in order to live and remain in the profession for which I had trained . . . hoping things would improve."
	As a result of all that, following the pay increase the gross income of that teacher will be £7.75 over the limit allowed for deferment of student loan repayments. I wish I could go into more detail, but I can tell the Minister that this will apply to many other Members.
	My fifth point concerns a reorganisation of benefits called the ONES. I recently visited a home for people with learning difficulties. I simply cannot believe that someone has come up with such a crackpot scheme. People in such homes are experiencing extreme mental-health problems, and it was always the case that the professionals would represent them in terms of benefits. That has all changed. The home that I visited was told "You now have to ring a help line". When that was done, nothing seemed to satisfy the gentleman at the other end of the line. It appears that these people now have to be interviewed individually. That is crazy, and I hope the Minister will look into it.
	Finally, let me say that the best Christmas present for Southend would be the according of city status. I bet that when Her Majesty the Queen visited the town in 1998, she thought it extraordinary that it had not been declared a city. We have no cities in our wonderful county of Essex, although it is a huge area. I am sure that any Member visiting Southend would be given a warm welcome, and would support my entreaties to the Minister.

Rudi Vis: Because of the five-minute limit, I will read my speech quite fast. I do not require a response from the Minister; I want to save time.
	I merely wish to praise an innovative undertaking in my constituency—a foyer scheme, known as the safe start foyer. Recently Maria Mulloy, development manager of the scheme, invited me to a six-months review lunch at the foyer. The scheme is managed at Handley grove, off Claremont road in Cricklewood. It was set up for the benefit of young vulnerable people who are homeless, unemployed or both, and was officially opened in May 2001 by the Minister for Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and the then Irish ambassador, Mr. Edward Barrington.
	I had already visited the foyer some months earlier, when I was able to discuss at length with young people what the scheme meant to them. They told me that their lives had changed entirely for the better once they came into contact with it. The foyer contains 24 flats with on-site support staff, providing key opportunities for disadvantaged young people who want to built a better future for themselves. Those whom I had the chance to meet were enormously positive.
	The foyer is currently fully let, containing 24 young adults aged between 16 and 25 of whom 11 are working and 13 are in full-time education. They told me of their past, which was at times gruesome. They seemed eloquent, intelligent and worldly-wise, and I enjoyed our discussions. They told me about their skills assessments, the training, and the job-seeking support available on site for residents. They also showed me their flats, the training and meeting rooms, information-technology access and the cafe and offices.
	The chief executive of the safe start foundation, Mahesh Singadia, and Tom Beisty, who chairs the foundation, told me how the scheme had come about. Councillor Alan Williams, leader of the London borough of Barnet, had discussed the building of the foyer with the Network housing association, which was building 113 affordable rented homes in the area. The safe start people were brought in to manage it, and Barnet college's principal, John Skitt, was enlisted to discuss learning opportunities. All four partners put money and effort into the scheme, and the Housing Corporation came up with the capital costs. The Bank of Ireland also played a positive role.
	The scheme is quite expensive, and the high standard of accommodation and services suggest as much. Safe start will see hundreds of formerly vulnerable young adults leave its premises with a good future to look forward to, and that is worth every penny. I am sure that those young people will, for once, have a decent Christmas this year.
	I shall end with season's greetings to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all colleagues in the House.

John Baron: I shall keep my comments brief, as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. I want to raise two issues that are concerning my constituents. The first relates to toxic ash that has been dumped in one corner of my constituency, and the second to the concern about the shortage in police numbers across the constituency.
	Following reports on "Newsnight" and in the local press that toxic ash had been dumped at Pitsea tip, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 6 July asking for how long and when that dumping was allowed to happen; why proper controls were not in place to ensure that it did not happen; who was responsible for ensuring that public safety was adhered to; whether there was any risk to human health; and what measures were being taken to ensure that that did not happen again.
	Despite further letters on 18 October, numerous phone calls and written parliamentary questions dated 6 November, I have not received a substantive response. Would the Minister, as a gesture of festive co-operation if nothing else, please raise this matter with the Secretary of State and generate a response? It is a matter of great concern to a large number of my constituents.
	The second issue relates to a real concern across the constituency about the shortage of beat and response officers. A number of recent cases strongly suggest that the police are overstretched. In Essex, crime has risen in recent years, whereas the number of police constables has fallen. As part of an overall strategy to get much tougher with the criminal, we should instigate a step change in policing levels across the country, and get as many as an extra 25,000 to 30,000 police officers on the beat over the medium term.
	The strength of feeling in Billericay and district is such that recently, in only two weeks, 5,500 constituents signed a petition calling for more police officers to be committed to the constituency. I presented that petition to the House of Commons on 10 December. I am aware that hardly any time has passed since then, but as I was previously unable to generate a response from another Department on the toxic ash incident, I ask the Minister to remind the Home Secretary that that petition sits on his desk, and I look forward to receiving his response early in the new year.
	I shall leave the matter there. I should like to extend greetings and wish all hon. Members a good Christmas. I look forward to those two responses.

Mark Hoban: There is a growing gap, as my constituents perceive it, between the Government's rhetoric and their experience of public services in Fareham. I shall kick off with the topic of health. I shall contrast two newspaper articles that appeared in successive weeks in one of my local papers.
	The first was a Government press release trumpeting the allocation of £75,000 to the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham, which was to cut waiting lists overnight and reduce the delays that people face in the accident and emergency department. That £75,000 will produce three and a bit nurses to cope with the growing number of people going to A&E units.
	The following week there was an announcement that the hospital trust that looks after the Queen Alexandra hospital had a deficit of £5.5 million, and had to lose 150 staff, including front-line medical staff. It is not surprising, therefore, that my constituents see a growing gap between what the Government talk about in this Chamber and the reality on the ground.
	One of the problems that hospitals everywhere face is the crisis in accident and emergency units. Admissions to those units are growing, many of them elderly people who have been forced to remain at home because the nursing home beds to cope with them are not available. Those beds are not available because the standards imposed by the Government on nursing homes have led to the closure of many in my constituency. The Government have not compensated nursing home owners for the additional costs that that they have incurred. Not only are more elderly people staying at home, but when they reach hospital, more and more have to stay there because there are no homes for them to go to for a convalescence period. A crisis is building up in the health service in south-east Hampshire, as a consequence of the underfunding of the health service and the loss of front-line medical staff, as well as the lack of adequate care places for elderly people.
	I wish to place on record my thanks to the teachers and head teachers in my constituency for their hard work and dedication over the past year. That hard work and dedication has masked a growing crisis in recruitment and retention of teachers in my constituency. I raised that topic twice earlier this month. One of the manifestations of the crisis in Fareham is that a local head teacher, David Wilmot, set up a stall in Sainsbury's to recruit more teachers from among passing customers. I thought that that was a tribute to his innovation and initiative, but it was also a sad indictment of the state of the teaching profession and the problems imposed on teachers by the Government through increased work load and more directives.
	We cannot talk about the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention in isolation, because it has an effect on pupils. We have already heard Mike Tomlinson, the chief inspector of schools, explain this month that the stalling in the rate of improvement in literacy and numeracy at the age of 11 was partly caused by the turnover of teachers. My concern is that the improvement in exam standards over recent years will grind to a halt if teacher turnover increases and it is harder and harder to fill existing vacancies. The Government need to act promptly to avoid a crisis in education arising from the shortage of teachers.
	The third issue I wish to raise is transport. The Government office for the south-east sent a letter to the chief executive of Hampshire county council. Its opening sentence reads:
	"The Government's vision for transport is for a modern, high-quality network that meets people's needs and offers more choice to individuals, families, communities and businesses."
	I regret to say that the choice available to my constituents is which traffic jam to sit in. There are two major M27 junctions in my constituency—junction 9 to the west and junction 11, which takes traffic from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). Both junctions are at maximum capacity at peak times because of the housing development that has taken place in my constituency in recent years. The Government plan more housing developments in the two boroughs. They have responded to the problem in part by providing funds for the south Hampshire rapid transit system. That will provide some relief, but only for people travelling from Fareham and Gosport to Portsmouth and back. It will do nothing for people travelling to Winchester, Southampton or Basingstoke, or for people who live in the west of the constituency who use junction 9. Further public transport investment is not the sole answer to the problem. We need more investment in roads, and soon.
	At the moment, three surveys cover the M27—the south coast multi-modal survey, the M27 integrated transport survey and the Fareham and Gosport access study. We have had three studies, but what we need is action, not studies. The Government must provide additional funds to improve the M27, or to stop housing developments taking place in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies.
	In this brief canter through the issues in my constituency, I must point out that I am concerned that the Government have not been open about the difficulties that they face in trying to solve the problems. They would gain much more respect if they were honest about their problems with hospitals, schools and roads. We need a proper debate to decide how best to solve those problems. If the Government are not open but continue to recite their litany of statistics, people will become more and more cynical about them. This is a Government who promise much but deliver little.

Andrew Murrison: I believe that I am the last Back Bencher to speak before Christmas. Brevity is a virtue, and I shall endeavour to be brief.
	Christmas Adjournment debates are meant to be an opportunity to raise pressing constituency issues. The Government delivered a pretty rotten Christmas present to west Wiltshire last week. Two long-awaited road building and improvement schemes have been delayed, pending decisions on funding, as part of a cull of road projects across the south-west region.
	I am pleased to be able to use this debate to highlight the disappointment felt by many of my west Wiltshire constituents with the Government's failure to commit funds to the construction of a bypass for Westbury and to urgent improvements on the A36 from Codford to Heytesbury. Westbury has awaited its bypass since the 1930s. Since then, through traffic has increased hugely—to the extent that air quality in the centre of an otherwise delightful market town is unacceptably poor by all recognised standards.
	The A36 is notorious. It is known locally as "death valley", and rightly so. Indeed, one prominent local journalist turned to me in despair at the weekend and said, "I am just fed up with attending fatal traffic accidents along the A36." I myself recently attended a tragic accident on that road, in which a family of four was killed. Such an event certainly focuses the attention.
	I regret to say that the Government's record on road building—indeed, on transport as a whole—is characterised by indecision. I suppose that in retrospect, my long-suffering constituents might have expected this outcome.
	If the Government had a real alternative to road transport, we might not need our road improvements and I might not be standing here delivering this speech this evening, but they do not have an alternative. The Government's integrated transport policy seems to me to revolve around squeezing folk off the roads by making it sheer hell to drive. It simply is not working, particularly in rural areas where a car is no luxury.
	The A3 Hindhead bypass is a textbook case of dither and delay, and one that will not give my constituents much cheer. The answer to a parliamentary question in May revealed that the Government did not intend to begin construction of the road—one of the most pressing schemes in the country—until at least 2008. The bypass was part of the roads programme of the previous Conservative Government, but Labour dithered for four years before enforcing another delaying order.
	In addition, there is a hidden cost for those who live in the line of proposed roads. That cost is planning blight, and it causes huge misery. However, the dither and delay are not uniform. The Deputy Prime Minister's constituents got their improvements on the A1033 and the neighbouring A63. That was good news for those with Jaguars.
	The self-styled party of constructive opposition, the Liberal Democratic party, is duplicitous. Across the country, road construction is certainly welcomed by many Liberal Democrats locally, usually with an eye to electoral advantage. However, before the election, the party's national message was very different indeed.
	Thanks to the Government's house-building targets, we have seen concrete countryside all right, but not the transport infrastructure to support it. Given that this week's planning Green Paper is called, ominously, "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change", we can expect things to get worse. May I press the Government to make up their mind about how they are going to resolve the urgent congestion and safety issues faced by motorists, pedestrians and residents in west Wiltshire, and in the south-west region as a whole? On a happier note, I also wish them a very happy Christmas.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I confess to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) that I drove through Westbury on Saturday to see my mother, and was surprised to find that there was no relief road or bypass, so I am afraid that I contributed to the congestion. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had been in the House longer, he would know that dither and delay is not something that this Government can lay unique claim to. We in Cornwall suffered for many years because the previous Conservative Government dithered and delayed over essential improvements to the A30. Although I extend to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all Members of the House a warm invitation to come to the warmest part of the United Kingdom—Cornwall—for Christmas, I ask you not to use the A30 during daylight hours, to avoid getting stuck in a traffic jam.
	It probably says in "Erskine May" that Adjournment debates must always be opened by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I have attended many of these debates, but never have I attended one in which the hon. Gentleman has not made a very serious point, and I admire his consistency. All too often, we deny and ignore the serious problems of Cyprus, a Commonwealth country. I was a Member of the House when the invasion took place in 1974, and it was a horrendous experience for a number of my constituents who were there.
	A number of important threads have run through this evening's contributions, and I hope to refer briefly to some of them. I was struck by the way in which Members on both sides of the House dealt with international as well as local issues. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) talk about the causes of terrorism, while later the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred, very properly, to the serious situation in the middle east. It is important at this time of year, when we approach a Christian festival, to remind ourselves that there are common roots for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Far more unites us than divides us. It may be important for us to remind our constituents of that when we go back for our Christmas celebrations.
	Most of this evening's contributions have been concerned with matters closer to home. The right hon. Member for South–West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) is not in her place at the moment, but it is striking how the delivery of public services, to which she referred, has become the big issue of 2001. Although many thought that the general election would be fought on the euro, that was not the issue for the electorate. I find it interesting that Conservative Members who were Ministers just a few years ago seem now to have adopted a completely different attitude to the necessary level of investment in public services—so long as their constituency is at the front of the queue.
	The right hon. Lady's references to public services were echoed by the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), particularly in relation to the police. I was a member of a police authority for many years before I came here—when I had a real job, in fact. I found that the police service was often ignored by London because it was thought that it could manage on its own and would always attract the support and resources that it required. We have learned the hard way over the past 20 years that that is not the case. The recruitment and retention of police officers is extremely important and requires greater attention. We are only just now pulling out of the funding trough of the 1980s and 1990s.
	The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey has touching faith in the value of ministerial visits. Frankly, I could do without them—so long as they just send the cheque.

Shona McIsaac: They clog up the A30.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has a great deal of support across the House for the concern that she has expressed on a number of occasions about the way in which fireworks are sold and used. We all know from constituency experience that the manufacture of fireworks has reached such pyrotechnic heights that putting them in the hands of amateurs, let alone children, is dangerous. I hope that her message, which was backed up by the hon. Members for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), and is now backed up by me, too, will be heard by Ministers. Something must be done—things cannot continue as they are.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is not in his place at the moment, is also a regular. One day he will get up and tell us that the Royal Hospital Haslar is okay, and sit down again. We should all be so amazed that we would think that something had gone wrong with the normal conventions of the House.
	There has been concern about the police in several constituencies for very many months—indeed, for many years. However, we should all appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington about the degree to which there is fear of crime. Perception is as important as reality in politics. Fear of crime is extremely important.
	Although I cannot comment on the particular circumstances in the borough of Bromley to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I can assure him that we all recognise our responsibility to ensure that in addressing crime prevention, detection and clear-up, we also pay attention to the effect of crime on public perception all over the country. Fear of crime is a real problem among all age groups.
	The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North uncharacteristically attacked Members of the other House. He referred to the loss of an opportunity to deal with the blasphemy laws. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, until a few months ago, a Minister. As far as I am aware, he made no proposals then to deal with the unfortunate situation as regards blasphemy, but now he blames his colleagues. The victories in the House of Lords on that issue were achieved not merely by Cross-Benchers, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but with the support of Labour peers, because it was felt that not enough preparation had gone into the clauses on blasphemy. They were inserted at the last minute and had nothing to do with the emergency situation dealt with by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
	Those provisions were rejected because they were not good enough. That is what this whole place is about—scrutiny of legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an experienced Member, does not recognise that the value of the other place is—and, under the proposals that he will no doubt support, will continue to be—that it acts as a revising Chamber, providing proper scrutiny of the law and preventing Ministers from bludgeoning their way through this building with Bills that are not properly prepared, he has lost his opportunity, and I am sad for him. I agree, however, with his concerns about partisan tit-for-tat and the parliamentary commissioner. That is a serious issue.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raised some interesting issues that have more than local significance. Parish pump politics concern all of us. They are important; they are the basic building blocks of our whole democracy. For example, if the circumstances of the parish poll that he described were replicated all over the country, we should all feel that democracy was suffering—not only from the apparent distortion of that result by commercial interests but also by the fact that an issue could be triggered by a small but perhaps fanatical group. As a result, democratic representatives at every level of government, all the way up to this place, might be undermined. That is not merely a Droitwich Spa problem—it is genuinely national, as the House will realise.
	I was especially struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Gedling, because so many of our communities are dependent on diminishing bus services. Again I shall refer to my experience before I was elected to this place. I was an adviser to the then Bus and Coach Council when the Conservative Government were threatening the deregulation and privatisation of the whole control system for bus services. This country lost something during that process.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was a colleague at that time, and will recall that we published a booklet called, "The country will miss the bus". The drawing on the front echoed Shell's advertisements about the loss of some of our natural species. The slogan was "Spot the dwindling—

Peter Luff: "Spot the endangered species."

Paul Tyler: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he is an hon. Friend in this context. However, the animals, birds and bees depicted on our booklet are likely to have survived—indeed, they have survived—but the little bus in the picture has gone. Country buses have disappeared. In my constituency there are hardly any regular bus services to the outlying areas. Regular users of buses—or those who would like to be—are not the most articulate members of our communities. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling for acting as the voice of bus users in his area. It may be a long way from Nottingham to North Cornwall, but I believe that we have a community of interests in that respect.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned a very urgent issue. The so-called fridge mountain will affect every local authority in the country. It has come like an express train out of a tunnel at us in a matter of days. Local authority members all over the country simply do not know what has hit them, and the Government stand indicted for having failed to recognise the significance of something that they signed up to, which they certainly are not resourcing sufficiently. In those circumstances, the Local Government Association is right to warn local authorities of what will happen, and we in turn have a responsibility to our constituents.
	I have mentioned the hon. Member for Islington, North. He was right to remind us what the situation in the middle east could be over the next few days, rather than weeks.
	Like a Christmas tree, the hon. Member for Southend, West always manages to have a number of baubles to show off to us in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and tonight was no exception. I was particularly struck by an issue that he took up about the retention and recruitment back into the profession of teachers. If the crisis that our schools are facing is to be relieved in any way, it will be by bringing back into the profession people who have left, perhaps to have a family. I hope that Ministers will listen carefully on that issue; I believe that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) also mentioned it.
	I have a foyer project in my constituency, as does the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis); indeed I have several, in small market towns. It is interesting to reflect that in those two contrasting constituencies there will be a great opportunity to provide a support system to help young people with accommodation, training and employment.
	The hon. Member for Fareham referred back to the public services issue, and I shall wait with interest over the next few weeks, if not months, to see how the Conservative party funds the various local constituency pleas for more resources and builds them into a national programme.
	As I have a minute or two in hand, I shall do what every other contributor to the debate has done—jump on my own hobby-horse. I have in many previous such debates referred to a serious problem that affects anyone who flies. I do not mean deep-vein thrombosis, although I have, in the past two or three years, mentioned that. I refer to a problem concerning the way in which organophosphate lubricants are used in some jet engines, and in certain conditions can be, as it were, inhaled into the aircraft cabin.
	There now exists a very effective group that is providing information on the subject. It is called the Aviation Organophosphate Information Site, and was set up by flight crews. We already know the harm that acute exposure to organophosphates can cause. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has had ministerial experience of the way in which OPs are used, or have been used over the years, in the sheep industry, where they have had a devastating effect. Acute exposure to OPs, which are very dangerous chemicals, can be devastating. However, in the aviation industry, where these lubricants can leach into the cabin through ineffective seals and cause toxic fumes, there can be chronic exposure over a matter of years.
	If any hon. Members are not coming to Cornwall this Christmas but are thinking of travelling abroad, I suggest that they look very carefully at the aircraft in which they are flying. It is usually short-haul aircraft that are affected, so hon. Members who are flying long-haul will be all right, but short-haul aircraft, particularly those used in Australia, have been shown to have a particular problem.
	The BAe 146, for example, has caused immense problems and very dangerous and risky circumstances for flight crews and passengers alike. I have drawn attention to a number of incidents that have taken place all over the world over the past two years. If I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the BAe 146 is used by the Queen's Flight, you will appreciate how serious the problems could be if those chemicals are not properly controlled.
	I recently tabled questions to Ministers to try to obtain some information about the international investigation of those incidents. In a parliamentary answer last week, the Government said that they
	"are monitoring these developments closely and are prepared to commission specific work on organophosphates if this proves necessary."—[Official Report, 11 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 801W.]
	My final words before I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a very happy Christmas, are that I hope that there will not be an incident that will force the Government to consider the problem at great speed; I hope that we can deal with it before a dangerous incident occurs.

Angela Browning: I am pleased to take part in responding to the Christmas Adjournment debate. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Parliamentary Secretary, who will reply to the debate for the Government, are aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has some critical family matters to deal with this evening, so I am grateful to you for allowing me to fill the slot. I suppose that it is traditional at this time of year that we elderly aunties get trotted out and allowed to join in the family fun.
	Having responded to such a debate before in a previous incarnation, I rather hoped that the Christmas Adjournment debate, of all end-of-term debates, would have a cheerful, seasonal feel to it, but there has not really been any "God rest ye merry gentlemen" about tonight's debate. We have heard from many hon. Members that crime is up, that the loutish behaviour on our streets is increasing, that those louts bomb this country's streets with incendiaries, that dogs are barking, that babies are yelling, that cats are racing up curtains and that there will now be horrible mountains of unwanted refrigerators covered in toxic ash. That is what we face in the coming year—not a very cheerful picture. None the less, we have had a variety of contributions, with some common themes.
	I should like to tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that, if there is such a terrible problem on the A30 in Cornwall, I urge all hon. Members who are travelling to the west country for their Christmas vacations to stop in God's own county of Devon before they get to Cornwall; they will be made most welcome there.
	The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) is a regular contributor to these debates, as has been said. Yet again, using his vast experience from the chairmanship of all-party Cyprus group, he referred, in a very conciliatory tone, to the need to bring together the Turkish and Greek sides in Cyprus. He looked to the future, which set us off with a constructive and topical theme for this evening's debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) touched on international terrorism, which, despite the festive season, is always on our minds. He considered the role of the Council of Europe and the case for an international criminal court, which was mentioned by other hon. Members. No doubt, we shall return to that subject, because international terrorism will clearly present the global community with many challenges, especially when the people involved are caught and brought to justice. He will use his membership of the Council of Europe to ensure that that debate stays at the forefront of our minds.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) is another regular contributor to our end-of-term debates, and I thoroughly share his concern about Eaga. I have referred some terrible constituency cases from very elderly people to its chief executive. Regrettably, when warm homes week was recently celebrated at constituency level, taking part in a photo opportunity had been in my diary, but I felt so concerned about the experience of some of my constituents that I have said publicly that I will not take part in any photo opportunity until I am absolutely convinced that those elderly people are not still waiting for basic electrical work and plumbing to be properly completed to a proficient standard.
	When we are satisfied that that work has been done, I will warmly welcome that initiative, as will the hon. Gentleman. That work has to be done to the right standard because those people will have great difficulty if the job is not done properly, and they will have to keep contacting Members of Parliament just to get their central heating systems to work. Clearly, that is his experience, and it is mine as well. Many Members appear to be nodding, and it is worrying to think that they share a common experience on this issue. The matter needs to be sorted out, because it is unacceptable that even Members of Parliament cannot obtain proper replies in good time.
	The hon. Gentleman also touched on the issue of sexual offences against people with learning difficulties, which Mencap has placed at the forefront of our minds. I fully agree with him, but I am sorry that he was not at the Conservative party conference. He would probably have found that a strange experience, but the only fringe meeting at which I spoke was the one organised by Mencap on this subject. I share his concern.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) used her great experience as a former Secretary of State for Health to flag up regional disparities and the impact that they have on public services, such as health and the police force in her area. She provided great detail on how the people who work for such services or are recipients of them in areas such as Surrey are disadvantaged. She rightly said that the Government must be fair and that they have a responsibility to the whole country. Many of us think that it is an important issue and she used her great experience to make her points concisely. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take them on board.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) referred to the problems caused by fireworks. We have all received letters about them, but it is difficult to achieve a balance between people wanting to have genuine fun and people misusing fireworks so that they cause problems to the elderly, pet owners and others. I hope that we can have practical advice from the Government on the changes that they intend to introduce, because something needs to be done. The hon. Lady nods, and I hope that she accepts that I share her concern about the problem. We need to ensure that any proposals that the Government introduce are safe and fairly predictable. It is an offence to create disturbance at night whether through the use of fireworks or other means. Therefore, when people break the law and local authorities have sufficient evidence of that—that is part of the problem—they should be brought to account. Otherwise the word will get round and people will continue to break the law.
	I have never seen the Royal Hospital Haslar or known anyone who has been in it. However, I know all about it, because of the work over many years of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I remember seeing people outside the House with placards saying "Save the Royal Hospital Haslar" and my hon. Friend has raised the issue many times on the Floor of the House. Because of his efforts, he deserves to keep the hospital. I am not sure what will follow from the debate in the memorandum that the Parliamentary Secretary sends to his colleagues. I hope that it is not just a generalised round robin. In fact, I urge him to make clear in bold, large type the point about the deadline of 2007 for the Haslar hospital. As my hon. Friend has said, it justly deserves to have the word "indefinitely"—and not 2007—applied to it.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) touched briefly on modernisation, a subject on which he has gained quite a reputation in the House. He recommended that people speak for eight minutes and I timed his speech. He spoke for exactly eight minutes, which was first class. He takes the prize tonight for doing just that. I must say sorry to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), because I want him to think that he would win the prize.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, North spoke with great knowledge and in great detail about the plight of people who suffer from strokes, the prevention that might be put in place to minimise their incidence and, in particular, about the need for specialist services. It has been promised that, by 2004, people who suffer a stroke will automatically be guaranteed specialist referrals and specialist treatment. We all know how much a difference the right follow-up treatment to help with mobility or speech problems can make to those who have had strokes. Such treatment is essential. He said that the two main risks were smoking and blood pressure. I do not smoke, but since the Government came to office in 1997 my blood pressure has been up. I hope that I am not at too much risk.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) spoke about policing, as many hon. Members did. In particular, he flagged up the fact that crime was soaring in what he described as the leafy suburbs of Bromley. We often rightly focus on crime in inner cities, but leafy suburbs and rural areas have their share of crime, and that needs to be taken seriously. He said that as taxpayers we have higher bills, fewer police and more crime. The Government have to address that.
	The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) talked about the reform of public services, antisocial behaviour, community policing and antisocial behaviour orders, which we would all like to see applied in greater numbers. Not even the statutory agencies are aware of the opportunity to use them. If they are to be successful, we must use them. It will be interesting to discover whether there is a wider take-up of that vehicle if we talk about it more.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned parliamentary standards. I have just realised why he referred to me in that context. I repeat to him—this is private between us—I have not made that information public.

Ross Cranston: I have no idea of the nature of the complaints that the hon. Lady raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner. Of course, they will not necessarily remain confidential because there might be a report. I was simply appealing to her as a leading member of the Conservative Front Bench. I make the same appeal to Labour Members. However, if I gave offence, I unreservedly withdraw my comments and apologise.

Angela Browning: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very gracious. I accept his apology and shall move quickly on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned parish polls in his constituency. It was rich of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to talk about distorting polls. If any party is the past master of distorting polls, it has got to be the Liberal Democrats. We could all learn a few tricks about distorted polls from them. My hon. Friend made a good point, however. We all appreciate that the consequences could be enormous if it takes just 10 voters to trigger a parish poll.
	The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned fireworks, the problem with buses in the Nottingham city area and antisocial behaviour, which has been a common theme of our debate.
	I do not know whether you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) as "petal", which is how he described himself. That is not how I have seen him in the past, but I think that he makes a rather nice petal.
	My hon. Friend filled us with horror. I had not realised the scale of the imminent problem of second-hand and used fridges, both domestic and commercial. Apparently, there will not be a solution to that unless huge sums of money are spent, either by the Government or local authorities, or by the people who purchase the refrigeration units. Some 2.1 million fridges are replaced. I assume that is every year. There is nowhere for those fridges to go because the Government signed up to something and were not aware what it meant.
	The problem is on such a scale that Ministers should stay behind during Christmas and sort it out. I represent a rural area and I am worried that every spare lay-by and ditch will, over the coming year, be filled with horrible old fridges, because people will dump them if there is nowhere to put them.

Jeremy Corbyn: They will be on the streets as well.

Angela Browning: Yes, and it will be awful for the environment.
	I was coming to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). I did not agree with everything he said, which will not surprise him.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am relieved, actually.

Angela Browning: Now I shall really disappoint the hon. Gentleman for Christmas. He said that peace should be at the forefront of the situation involving the Israelis and the Palestinians. He stressed the importance of the negotiating table and the need for the United Kingdom and the Americans to use their influence to get people round it.
	Back in 1993, I visited Tunis with an all-party delegation, and we had a meeting with Yasser Arafat. His headquarters were then in Tunis and we met just before he moved out. Clearly, he has to take the initiative in dealing with many of the problems with Hamas. However, I do not underestimate the difficulty that he faces in doing that. Like all extremist terrorist groups, Hamas is pretty out of control; that does not let Arafat off the hook but, having met and talked to him, I can see the difficulty of the task that he still faces. There has to be a coming together in a season when we focus on what is going on in the middle east. I was at a carol service on Saturday night and we all sang "O little town of Bethlehem". It was poignant to think of Jerusalem now; the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter and express his views in the way that he did.
	I shall be quick now because I am a minute over my allotted time. To my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, I say, "Stick with it, my friend." If I am ever in this position on the Front Bench again, I hope to give him a prize for raising many issues, for which the people of Southend, West will be grateful. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said that he did not want a response, but he did Finchley and Golders Green proud this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) raised the serious problem of toxic ash. He is waiting for a response from the Home Secretary on a petition that he has lodged; I hope that the Minister will ensure that he gets one. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) spoke about his local Queen Alexandra hospital and, again, problems with public services and care places for the elderly. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) spoke about the roads and problems including Government cutbacks in the road-building programme and the disarray of the integrated transport policy.
	I am most grateful for the opportunity to join everyone again for this momentous occasion. I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a peaceful 2002.

Stephen Twigg: I shall attempt to match my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), who represents a neighbouring constituency for speed. I shall try to reply to the 20 contributions to our debate in the 12 minutes or so that remain before 10 o'clock.
	First, I praise all Members for their self-discipline in keeping to a time limit on speeches. In three hours today, we have managed to hear 21 speeches, whereas in five hours in July we heard 22 speeches. I therefore congratulate Members on both sides of the House who participated in our debate. I welcome the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) back to a Front-Bench position. I believe that this is the first time that she has led for the Opposition since our exchanges in July.

Angela Browning: Since we said goodbye.

Stephen Twigg: Well, it was not goodbye—[Interruption.] It was au revoir, and I welcome her back. Our thoughts tonight will be with her colleague, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). We look forward to seeing him back in the House in the new year.
	Our debate has been wide ranging, extending from Droitwich Spa to the Western Sahara. There have been contributions on national and international issues, as well as important local issues. I shall do my best to respond to the points that were made, but apologise if I do not cover everything. I shall ensure that Members to whom I do not reply get responses in due course.
	I join the warm praise for the opening, and customary, speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). My constituency has more people hailing from the island of Cyprus than any other parliamentary constituency; I represent both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. I particularly welcome the fact that my hon. Friend's speech enables me to say something about Cyprus. Like him, I welcome the progress on the European Union accession talks. I, too, would prefer the whole of Cyprus to join the EU. However, it is vital that we reaffirm, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has done, the decision of the European Council at Helsinki that there should be no preconditions to the Republic of Cyprus joining the EU. I look forward to a day when we can once again see a united Cyprus with Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots living together side by side in peace, in the way they do in my constituency and in other parts of north London. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the new discussions between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash, which I hope will bear fruit in the new year.
	There were some thoughtful contributions on international issues. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who I believe celebrates his 25th anniversary in the House next year, referred—I agree with him—to the brilliant Dimbleby lecture by former President Clinton of the United States. He raised several extremely important issues about Africa, the middle east and other parts of the world and the powers of the International Criminal Court, which I am pleased to undertake to draw to the attention of my colleagues, especially those in the Foreign Office.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) said that the debate had been described by one of our hon. Friends as whingeing gits' day. Perhaps that is not the case today. As I have said, we have had some thoughtful contributions. Like my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, I have experience of some of the difficulties of the Eaga Partnerships scheme. I have had a number of constituency cases, and clearly it is something that the Government should address.
	As for the mis-selling by energy companies, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy in the Department of Trade and Industry has recently written to all gas and electricity suppliers to express concern about the distress caused by instances of sales malpractice, and to demand that suppliers improve their performances. That is an important step, and I think that all Members will want to see progress made.
	The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) contrasted private affluence with public squalor. She rightly talked about the situation in her constituency. All of us want what is best for our constituency. However, in addressing the issue of inequalities in health, Labour Members at least might have a different view about the scale and nature of the challenge that we are facing from that of the right hon. Lady.
	I note the recent budget allocations for the right hon. Lady's health authority, the West Surrey health authority. The figures before me show that in the last two years of the Conservative Government the real-terms increases were 0.5 per cent. and 1.4 per cent., whereas this year and next year those increases will be 6.3 per cent. and 6.9 per cent. I do not deny that there are many issues and challenges in the health service across the country, but we are seeing a real and sustained effort to get extra investment into the service.
	A number of Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), mentioned fireworks. I think that all of us receive correspondence from constituents setting out the sort of concerns that have been expressed this evening. I shall ensure that these concerns are drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs. Enforcement of fireworks regulations is the responsibility of local authority trading standards departments. However, my hon. Friend has recently sought feedback from those departments on levels of compliance and enforcement issues following this year's fireworks season.
	I know that my neighbour and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) raised the issue in a debate in Westminster Hall this year. I look forward to the ten-minute Bill that will be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) in January.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the case of the Royal hospital, Haslar, as he has done on a number of occasions. I congratulate him on his consistency in raising the issue and I pay tribute to his work. I understand—he said this—that the integration process between Haslar and the Portsmouth hospital trust is going well. I am sure that he will keep us informed of progress in the months and years ahead.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has now been out of purdah for six months and able to address the Chamber, has apologised for not being able to remain in his place for the closing speeches. I thank him for the tribute he paid to the progress that is being made on modernisation. I shall be very careful in responding to his suggestion that mandatory time limits be introduced for speeches. I know that that is a matter for Mr. Speaker and his deputies, but the debate tonight demonstrated that with self-discipline, we can enable all hon. Members who wish to take part in a debate to do so.
	My hon. Friend made a number of important points relating to stroke care. I pay tribute to him and to the work of the Stroke Association. By coincidence, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has responsibility in that sphere, is in the Chamber. I will ensure that Health Ministers are fully informed of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and that he gets the replies that he sought.
	The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), like me, represents an outer-London suburban constituency. I recognised some of the topics and challenges that he described in his contribution. I will pass on his kind words about my right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary, who I am sure will appreciate them, and I will ensure that the various matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are passed on.
	Several hon. Members acknowledged the fact that police numbers are rising. We are witnessing a change nationwide, but there is still an enormous amount to do. All hon. Members are acutely aware of crime and the fear of crime. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) raised important issues relating to the police, antisocial behaviour and the Government's proposals for reform of the police service. I endorse his remarks about the lost opportunity to take action to deal with incitement to religious hatred. It is sad that that opportunity was lost. That has caused hurt in many parts of our country, particularly to Muslim communities. The House will have to return to the matter.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) focused on important issues concerning his constituency. The Government attach great importance to the country's built heritage. Today a new document entitled "The Historic Environment: a Force for our Future" was launched. It sets out how we intend to move forward. I am not aware of the detail of all the hon. Gentleman's specific suggestions, but I will draw his remarks on behalf of his constituency to the attention of appropriate colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) spoke about various topics, most importantly the future of buses. There has been an increase in bus services nationwide, but a huge amount needs to be done. I endorse my hon. Friend's observation that improving the bus network is a vital way of providing for greater social inclusion.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) spoke about the alleged fridge mountain. He will be aware that the Government have secured money through the new opportunities fund for a recycling programme. Constructive discussions are taking place between Government, retailers, other companies and contractors responsible for disposal to agree a revised timetable so that the directive can be implemented properly. As a result, I hope that we will not see the fridge mountains to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), my former Member of Parliament when I lived in his constituency, highlighted the future of the middle east peace process. It is vital that we get the peace process back on track. We will achieve that only if there is a recognition of the right of Israel to live in true security, and a recognition that the Palestinians have the right to a viable state.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is, in his inimitable way, a regular at pre-recess Adjournment debates. He raised a series of concerns, many relating to his constituency, including a bid for city status. I will do my best to ensure that he gets appropriate responses from the relevant Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green said that he did not require a reply. As I have only a minute left, he will not get one.
	The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) spoke about the Pitsea tip and about correspondence and parliamentary questions. I hope that he will not be disappointed if I say that I cannot explain why his letters regarding the Pitsea tip have not yet been answered, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and encourage him to write fully to the hon. Gentleman.
	I am about to run out of time, so I end by wishing right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House a merry Christmas, a happy new year and a restful recess.

Ivor Caplin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like from the Chair to reciprocate the many good wishes that have been expressed in the course of the debate and to wish a happy Christmas to all hon. Members and the staff who serve us.

PETITION
	 — 
	Young Drivers

David Amess: In the early hours of the morning of 26 August this year, a fatal car accident happened on the A127 just outside Southend in which three young boys were killed. Mark Baker, aged 18, Glen Dineen, aged 18, and Gary Dineen, aged 16, were all killed. One of the parents feels very strongly that there should be a change in the law for those who have recently passed their driving test.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to introduce legislative proposals to prohibit drivers aged between 17 and 21 from carrying passengers aged under 21 until a period of six months has elapsed from the date of passing their driving tests; and to institute a review of driver licensing with a view to introducing a graduated licensing system.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

SPINA BIFIDA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Helen Clark: I am very glad to have obtained this opportunity to speak on this long- running and important issue. I have to tell the House that it is not a festive topic. I must also say that the reason why I have sought this debate is that I am very unhappy about the long delay and Government inaction that I shall be forced to detail.
	The headquarters of the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus—ASBAH—is situated in my constituency. Since I was elected in 1997, I have sought to advance the case for the fortification of flour with folic acid, on which the association had already been campaigning for several years. In its view, the Government's delay is "inordinate" and the failures by the Department of Health even to reply to correspondence are "unprecedented".
	Spina bifida is one of the most common congenital malformations. It occurs very early in pregnancy, at about four weeks, when the spine and brain are being formed. It is a fault in the development of the spine, which fails to close properly, and it often results in paralysis below the fault. A major secondary complication is hydrocephalus—excess fluid in the brain—which, if it is not treated properly, can cause brain damage. Neural tube defects, or NTD, affect about 1,000 pregnancies a year, and the numbers of births of severely handicapped children have mainly decreased because of terminations of pregnancy. At present, NTD affects about 0.13 live births out of every thousand. It is only abortion that prevents the number from being 10 times higher.
	There is a direct relation to the intake by mothers of folates, of which I understand that folic acid is the most easily ingested. Poor diet certainly increases the risk and probably accounts for the higher incidence of NTD among poorer women—perhaps those who are socially excluded. Even with a good diet, however, it is virtually impossible to obtain sufficient quantities of naturally occurring folate. The average daily intake is 200 micrograms.
	In 1991, an international study led by our own Medical Research Council found that if all pregnant women who had had a previous spina bifida pregnancy took four milligrams of folic acid a day from three months before conception to the end of the third week of pregnancy, the incidence of NTD could be reduced by 75 per cent. That finding was accepted by many authorities, including the then Government. A subsequent health campaign in 1996 increased knowledge among women about folic acid, with the result that 91 per cent. said that they had heard about it, compared with 9 per cent. before that. However, as we know, 35 to 50 per cent. of pregnancies are unplanned. A survey carried out in 1996 found that only one in 10 mothers took a supplement before conception, so that is not the answer either.
	In 1996, the United States centre for disease control recognised that health education and tablets would never lead to a significant reduction in NTDs. The United States legislated to make fortification of flour and some other staple foods compulsory. Of course, the United Kingdom must make its own decisions, but our rates of NTD pregnancies are among the highest in the world. We also have precedents for additives such as calcium in flour and iodine in salt. They are accepted as a means of protecting health.
	Representatives of ASBAH met Ministers from the previous Administration more than once. They were told that increased intake of folic acid should be a matter for the individual, not public action. The new Labour Government immediately and rightly put public health at the top of their agenda, and appointed a public health Minister. We have made great strides in recognising the link between social and geographical circumstances and health conditions, and in taking measures to tackle that.
	In 1996, ASBAH met the Labour Opposition health spokesperson, who gave an undertaking that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition—COMA—would investigate the fortification of flour with folic acid, should a Labour Government be elected. In September 1997, as the newly elected Member for Peterborough, I met Andrew Russell, executive director of ASBAH, Professor Nicholas Wald and a member of COMA for a briefing on the matter. I was impressed by the strength of the case in general, including the claim that no other single public health measure could prevent as many serious birth defects, and especially by arguments against concerns about the health of the rest of the population if fortification were introduced.
	There were two such anxieties. First, folic acid might interfere with the diagnosis of vitamin B12 deficiency. Secondly, people with epilepsy would risk their condition becoming uncontrolled. The evidence showed that folic acid might improve the anaemia associated with B12 deficiency and thus mask its symptoms. However, it does not cause the deficiency, which can be diagnosed by means other than anaemia. Even higher amounts of folic acid than the target 0.4 milligrams would not affect existing epileptics.
	Once a fortification policy had been implemented, newly diagnosed epileptics would be controlled on already supplemented flour. I accept that a more cautious position was subsequently adopted on the latter. However, in 1998, a study of 60 epileptic women who were given 0.8 milligrams in multivitamin supplements, found no side effects. That remains the case. When COMA reported in January 2000, it reached the same conclusion. However, I shall revert to that point shortly.
	After my meeting with ASBAH, I sought and later obtained a meeting with the then public health Minister. That happened in November 1997, although the Minister was unavoidably absent and was represented by her parliamentary private secretary. Again, it was attended by Professor Wald, Andrew Russell, Professor Wiseman of the Department of Health and officials.
	In the meantime, I had tabled the first of three cross-party early-day motions on the topic and, with Lord Ashley of Stoke, organised a reception in the House of Lords in December to publicise the issues. At the meeting, we were told that COMA was considering the subject and that
	"in principle, there was no opposition to the fortification of flour, but the Government would be guided by medical and scientific evidence."
	That is fair enough. ASBAH and I were encouraged that that was a change compared with the position of the Conservative Administration.
	Professor Wald said that he would favour an amount of 0.4 milligrams a day but that less would be acceptable. Professor Wiseman mentioned some other possible benefits of folic acid supplements such as a possible protection against cardiovascular disease. He said that although the research was inconclusive, that should not be a barrier to fortification on the ground of preventing neural tube defects.
	The reception in December gained an unexpected boost. In the weeks that immediately preceded it, Bianca, a central character in the popular soap "EastEnders", played by Patsy Palmer, discovered that she was expecting a spina bifida baby. With her partner, Ricky, she agonised about whether to have an abortion. In the end, she did. Patsy Palmer attended our reception.
	At that point, we were very optimistic that a favourable Government decision would be taken, and taken soon. We were led to believe that COMA would report within a year or so and expected a subsequent Government decision. We had to wait another year. ASBAH was extremely disappointed, as it expected the Government to take "a more socially inclusive"—we always talk about that—"and responsible view" than their predecessors. ASBAH and I wrote separately to inquire about progress. We waited several months for a response. COMA reported in January 2000:
	"On scientific, medical and public health grounds, the Committee concluded that universal folic acid fortification of flour at 240 micrograms per 100 grams in food products as consumed would have a significant effect in preventing NTD-affected conceptions and births without resulting in unacceptably high intakes in any group of the population."
	It said later:
	"The Committee has identified a level of fortification that would provide significant benefit in reducing the incidence of pregnancies affected by NTD without exposing any section of the population to risks."
	That was good news. I tabled a second early-day motion that welcomed it, but it also called for the forthcoming consultation to be as brief as possible, given the long delays. A few weeks later, I asked a parliamentary question on how the consultation on the report's practical and legal implications would be conducted. I was told:
	"A public consultation will be undertaken shortly inviting comments on the report's conclusions."—[Official Report, 27 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 338W.]
	Several weeks later, ASBAH received another letter stating the Government's intention to issue a consultation document shortly, which would inform future policy. Twelve weeks were to be allowed for responses.
	On 24 May, I tabled a parliamentary question asking when the consultation document would be published. Again, I was told "shortly". On 25 July, in response to yet another parliamentary question, I learned that the document had been published and that the consultation was to run until 31 October 2000. I am sorry if this is becoming tedious, but it is essential to understand the frustration experienced by those of us who have been involved in the issue for a long time. I am afraid that I have not finished.
	For the past year, ASBAH and I have been trying to obtain a response from the Department of Health to the results of the consultation. I shall not list all the dates and I certainly shall not identify the Ministers concerned, but I will say that three ASBAH letters went unanswered and that it was erroneously claimed in a letter to me that a reply had been sent. I wrote to the Secretary of State at the end of August, saying how disturbed and concerned I was by such delay and discourtesy and that I had to agree with chief executive Andrew Russell that the delay looked rather like a "substitute for decisiveness". Those are his words, not mine.
	I also said that I was, as I remain, concerned about the monetary and human costs of the delay, including those of the many avoidable pregnancy terminations that occur each year due to neural tube defects. It is traumatic for a woman to have a termination. The Department of Health letter to ASBAH dated 19 November said that the majority of responses were in favour of fortification, but again raised the issue of B12 deficiency. The good news was that apparently crucial research on the prevalence of that condition had just been completed. Another issue related to the technical aspects of fortification and, apparently, the Food Standards Agency will engage in detailed discussions with industry representatives to see what might be feasible.
	In my first meeting with ASBAH in June 1997, I was assured that there were no technical obstacles, but that the industry had naturally said that it required a directive from the Government before implementing fortification. I tabled a third early-day motion on 9 November to draw attention to some of the facts, noting that the Department's deadline for consultation responses had passed more than a year ago and urging an early announcement of its intentions.
	I agreed with ASBAH that, if we had heard nothing by spring, we would go ahead with yet another function in the Commons, but that, hopefully, we would not need to do so. I still hope that that may be the case, or that the function will go ahead, but that we shall be celebrating and not endlessly calling for action. I was horrified, therefore, when very shortly afterwards an article appeared in the British Medical Journal calling for further delays on the ground of the masking effects of folic acid on B12 deficiency and yet more research.
	As will be apparent from what I said earlier, the article is based on no new evidence. The reservations expressed by its authors, Professors Wharton and Booth, were dismissed by COMA two years ago. Worst of all, the call for field trials—a rather peculiar phrase in itself—is, I understand, a non-starter, as it would involve millions of participants. In any case, the experience of fortification in the United States already provides the necessary evidence. As I have said, flour fortification has been established there since 1998, with full public acceptance. It has involved minimal cost, and no hazards have emerged. We are talking about a population of a quarter of a billion, which strikes me as quite a large field sample on which to base any conclusions.
	Surely enough is enough. We have the evidence; the precedents are there; the practical barriers can be surmounted. Please, please, at Christmas time, may I have an assurance that the Government will follow the recommendations of their own Committee—as they promised they would five years ago—and recommend the fortification of flour with the suggested and agreed amount very, very soon?

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on raising this issue. I assure her that the Government take it very seriously, especially given that—as she pointed out—about 100 births are affected by neural tube defects each year, and spina bifida is the most common of those defects.
	We have not been resting on our laurels since the consultation exercise; a significant amount of work has been done. I realise that my hon. Friend and others who have campaigned in favour of fortification would like to see faster progress—particularly organisations such as the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus.
	Let me record the Department's apology to ASBAH for the delays in answers to correspondence. Although those oversights are regrettable, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that they were purely administrative, and not due to an unwillingness to communicate. No doubt it will be appreciated that the issue is complex, and that the universal fortification of any food—mainly bread, in this case—is a major public health issue that requires the fullest consultation and consideration.
	As my hon. Friend said, during the 1960s it was suggested that the risk of a woman's bearing a child with a neural tube defect might be affected by her intake of the vitamin folate. In 1991, definitive evidence was established in a trial by the Medical Research Council which showed that supplementation with folic acid—the artificial form of the naturally occurring vitamin folate—significantly reduced the risk of NTDs in women who had already been through a pregnancy affected by NTD.
	Following that, the then Government initially issued guidance about supplementation with 5 mg of folic acid to prevent the recurrence of NTDs. The guidance was then expanded to cover the prevention of first-time NTDs, with the recommendation that all women planning pregnancies should take 400 mg as a daily dietary supplement from the time when they began trying to conceive until the 12th week of pregnancy. They were also advised to consume folate-rich foods.
	In 1995, the Health Education Authority began a nationally integrated campaign aimed at increasing the average daily intake of folate and folic acid. The key objectives were to increase awareness of the importance of additional folic acid before conception and 12 weeks into pregnancy in the general female population and in health professionals, to encourage fortification to increase the availability of fortified breads and breakfast cereals, and to make fortified products easily identifiable by promoting the use of a logo—the folic-acid flash—to highlight foods rich in folic acid.
	As my hon. Friend suggested, the campaign achieved some success. Spontaneous, unprompted awareness among women increased from 9 per cent. in 1995 to 49 per cent. in 1998, and prompted awareness rose from 51 per cent. to 89 per cent. The percentage of women claiming to take folic acid when trying for a baby had also risen from 24 to 38 per cent.
	As my hon. Friend said, although the campaign was generally successful, it had its limitations, as about half of all pregnancies in the United Kingdom are unplanned. Moreover, by the time that a woman knows that she is pregnant it may be too late for folic acid to be effective. Reaching those women remains a challenge. That is why there have been calls for food fortification.
	The Department asked its advisory committee—the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy—to consider the dietary intakes and nutritional status of the population with regard to folic acid, with particular reference to its contribution to preventing disease, and to make recommendations.
	The Government decided to consult on the recommendations in the report, as a number of other options were also outlined. Consultation took place between July and October 2000. Views were sought on whether universal fortification of bread or flour was desirable, whether any such fortification should be mandatory or voluntary, and the practicalities of fortification. That consultation also sought views on wider issues, such as the impact of the recommendations on consumers and consumer choice, food labelling and technical issues for the industry.
	A summary of responses to the fortification consultation was posted on the Department of Health website in July 2001. There were 167 respondents to the consultation, including people from academia, consumer and expert groups, trade organisations and individual companies, health authorities, local government and individuals.
	The consultation was complex, and the responses raised a number of issues. Although the majority of respondents—59 per cent.—were in favour of fortification, that was not overwhelming. The most common concerns expressed were about the potential risks of fortification, especially the risk of vitamin B12 deficiency among older adults. A significant number felt that sufficient information was still not available about the possible adverse effects.
	Other concerns were about the possible restriction of consumer choice. Almost 80 per cent. of respondents felt that it was important to maintain an element of consumer choice. Another issue was how fortification would be managed, and 85 per cent. felt that there should be restrictions on the level of fortification or the types of foods fortified. Respondents from industry also stated that technical problems may be associated with any mandatory policy.
	All those concerns demanded further exploration, and the Department and the Food Standards Agency commissioned relevant research and undertook further work to formulate firm policy options.
	As with any public health policy, we need to balance benefits against risks. Although the benefits for women of child-bearing age are well established, it is clear that in the opinion of many the potential risks, particularly the risk of B12 deficiency in older people, are not. Therefore, the Government did not feel that it was right to make a decision without further work on this and other issues. I shall explain what we have done in the intervening period and the stage we are at now.
	It is known that high levels of folic acid can make it difficult to diagnose vitamin B12 deficiency. Severe deficiency of vitamin B12 has two main effects: it can cause anaemia identical to that of folate deficiency; and, with prolonged deficiency, it can cause damage to the nerves and the spinal cord, leading to severe disability. The anaemia usually appears first, and thus allows early detection of vitamin B12 deficiency before any nerve damage occurs. Older adults are at greatest risk of B12 deficiency as they are less able to absorb the vitamin from foods. There is, therefore, concern that increased fortification of foods with folic acid could increase the number of older people at risk of undetected B12 deficiency.
	The level of fortification suggested by COMA, at 240 micrograms per 100 g, was designed to minimise the number of older people at risk of having high intakes of folic acid. COMA estimated that approximately 0.6 to 1 per cent. of older people could have intakes of folate high enough to mask B12 deficiency if all flour was fortified. However, information on the true prevalence of B12 deficiency was unknown at the time of the consultation, and it is only with that information that we can estimate how many individuals could be at risk of B12 deficiency. I am pleased to say that research on the prevalence of B12 deficiency and its diagnosis among adults over 65 years of age was commissioned by the Department and has now been completed. The work addressed the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency in older people, the most appropriate methods to diagnose it, and the feasibility of its routine identification in older people.
	That research is awaiting publication and, as a result, I am unable to release exact details of the findings. However, the results are in line with COMA in as much as that fortification would increase the risk of B12 deficiency among a significant number of older adults. To make full sense of the findings on the prevalence of B12 deficiency, a cost-benefit analysis has been carried out by the Department of Health.
	Preserving consumer choice was a significant issue for many people—almost 80 per cent. of respondents. Many responses suggested various options for certain types of bread which could remain unfortified. The Food Standards Agency therefore undertook some statistical modelling to look at consumption patterns and what effect those various options might have on folate intakes. The agency has also been addressing other issues of particular concern to consumers, such as the labelling of fortified foods.
	Issues have also been raised on the technical aspects of fortification which need consideration. Many responses from industry pointed to the complexity of the technical processes. Folate added to flour is lost to some extent during processing. The amount lost is known to vary substantially between products and, as a result, it could be difficult to achieve a specified target amount in foods as consumed. Respondents from industry also highlighted problems around the fortification of wholemeal flour, to which no vitamins or minerals are generally added at present. To address those concerns, the Food Standards Agency has conducted detailed discussions with industry so as to ensure that any action proposed would be feasible.
	In addition, the Food Standards Agency has assessed various legal aspects of fortification. Those include the public health justification under article 30 of the EC treaty; the terms of the notification under the treaty to the European Commission and member states; the use of powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 to control fortification levels; and issues under the Human Rights Act 1998, relating in particular to consumer choice.
	The information gathered from that extra work has now been collated and is being considered. As my hon. Friend may know, that has been a UK-wide exercise carried out jointly between the Health Departments and the Food Standards Agency. Ministers from all the UK Health Departments will therefore need to consider the issue. As part of that, there will also be a formal recommendation from the Food Standards Agency board to Health Ministers. My hon. Friend may be reassured to learn that I understand that the Food Standards Agency board will discuss its possible recommendation at a meeting in the new year.
	I hope that I have reassured Members, especially my hon. Friend, that we have been taking the issue seriously and have considered the issues in great depth. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the issue is complex and it is important to make the right decision on a fortification that could have wide-ranging implications, both beneficial ones and ones that should provoke further consideration.
	I remind Members that we continue to encourage women planning to become pregnant to increase their folate intake, including the use of supplements. We also support the folic acid flash scheme which helps consumers to identify foods that have been fortified with folic acid. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity this evening to address the issues, to allow the Government to lay out the action that has been taken and to reassure my hon. Friend that we take the issue very seriously.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.